The Commission commenced at 10AM.   Two witnesses for yesterday's hearing are being recalled today - CFMEU accountant Paula Masters is first up.

Ms McNaughton read extensively from the transcript of yesterday's appearance by Ms Masters - the issue at hand this morning is Ms Master's claim made yesterday that she did not know about the Commission's Notice to Produce as at 1 April 2014, the day of the CFMEU's large-scale document destruction.

Ms McNaughton referred Ms Masters to an email addressed to Ms Masters dated 1 April 2014.

The email was from Michael O'Connor and was sent a little after 4PM, Tuesday 1 April 2014- Subject, Urgent, Notice to Produce documents from the Royal Commission.

Ms Masters says that she definitely didn't see it on 1 April 2014.

Ms Masters thinks she might have seen it the next day but she can't be sure.

She makes the unbelievable claim that even though the email was sent to her personal CFMEU email address, she didn't read it because it was addressed to the attention of State Secretaries.

Ms Masters agreed that she would have seen the email's subject line as it arrived on her screen, even though she didn't open it, that is she saw the words 'Urgent, Notice to Produce documents to Royal Commission".

Ms Masters said she had no concern about the large-scale document disposal she supervised that day at the CFMEU Brisbane office.   She tells us that she knew that no documents that were disposed of would have been caught by the Notice to Produce.   She sounds like a bull artist to me.

At 10.15 Ms Masters was excused from further attendance at the Commission.

The next witness is Jacqueline Collie - recalled today to give her response to the Commission producing the O'Connor email also addressed to Ms Collie.

Ms Collie can't recall seeing the email.

She can't recall if anyone told her not to look at her email on that day.

Che can't recall whether she was told not to answer the phone on that afternoon as the large-scale document disposal was underway.

She says, "Notice to Produce documents wasn't part of my role:".

When pressed about her "can't recall" answers, Ms Collie does not admit to the possibility that because she can't recall what happened, she may well have seen the email, may been told not to answer the phone and may have been told not to look at her emails.   She can't recall, but she knows she didn't.

Ms Collie didn't think it was a problem to be hastily and urgently disposing of documents on the same day the Royal Commission served a Notice to Produce documents to the CFMEU.

At 1030 Ms McNaughton completed her examination.

Mr Agius asked one question and at 1031 Ms Collie was excused.

The next witness is Queensland CFMEU Secretary Michael Ravbar.

The rest of the Commission waited while its witness Mr Ravbar got himself comfortable and poured a glass of water.

Mr Ravbar agrees that he is the person responsible for the CFMEU in Queensland, the most senior CFMEU person in the state.

He agrees that he is diligent in keeping himself informed about important matters involving the CFMEU.   He agrees that he is an exacting boss.

He agrees that his reputation amongst staff which was referred to by witnesses yesterday is that he's across all issues affecting the CFMEU.

He states that during March 2014 he became aware that the Royal Commission would be enquiring into the CFMEU and he knew that at some stage there'd be a notice to produce issued to the CFMEU.   He was expecting a Notice to Produce to come.

He state that he didn't see the email from Michael O'Connor re "Urgent, Notice to Produce" until late in the morning on 2 April 2014.   He states that although he was in the office ,had a computer, had a PA and was a diligent informed chief of the CFMEU, he did not look at his email on that day.

He states that he did tell "someone" to make sure that he wasn't disturbed while "going through the files" on that afternoon.

He says that as a result of going through the documents on the Friday, he made the decision on the evening of the Monday that all the documents would have to go.

"The office looked terrible with boxes of documents in there".  Mr Ravbar thinks that explains the urgency of getting rid of the documents on the day the Notice to Produce them was issued.

He agrees that at the time of the document disposal he was expecting to receive a Notice to Produce - but be real, the office looked terrible.

He doesn't seem troubled that he admits to definitely having read about the Notice to Produce by late on the morning of 2 April 2014 - at that time much of the material had been taken to Dave Hanna's house and would have been easily retrieved.

Mr Ravbar states that he did not ask Mr Hanna to assist in the document disposal - an intriguing statement.

Mr Ravbar has an annoying idiom is that he uses the phrase "is that" regularly, is that he says "is that" too much.

He is not on strong ground when he gives evidence that he went through every document in the boxes, he states he wanted to know what the documents said and felt he urgently needed to make a decision as to whether or not to keep them.   At no time during that process did he consider the question of whether a potential Notice to Produce from the Royal Commission would require those documents.

He now tells Ms McNaughton that while he looked at every 'file" he did not look at every page.  Ms McNaughton puts the proposition that he could not have known whether some of the pages were hand-written notes or other unique documents.  

Ms McNaughton, "You couldn't have been certain that the CFMEU wouldn't require documents from amongst the files you disposed of".   He answers that the office was a mess and he was required in those circumstances to act immediately to clean the joint out.

At about 11.25 odd there was a moment of apparently exquisite self-awareness from Ravbar, in the midst of gobbledygook and gibberish his demeanour slumped and he looked like he was hearing his own bullshit for what it was, bullshit that even he didn't believe.

We move to the covering of the cameras.

"you've heard two people give evidence that the cameras were covered over on the afternoon of the document disposal - now you agree you're a diligent and well informed boss?"

"Ah, ye.....es."

Ravbar claims not have known the cameras were covered until some weeks after the 1st of April.  He never gave an instruction to cover them and didn't know they were covered - but if anyone gave an instruction it would definitely been Dave Hanna.

AT 1130 THE COMMISSION ADJOURNED FOR MORNING TEA and a chance for the diligent well informed amongst them to check their emails.

At 1145 THE COMMISSION RESUMED - all emails marked URGENT were attended to

Ms McNaughton, "Mr Ravbar, how many mobile phones do you have?"

Ravbar, "One."

Q.    "How many mobile phones do you use?"

A.     "One, I may have used more than one"

Q.      "As at the end of March, early April what mobile phone did you use?   Would you kindly write down your phone number and your vehicle registration number for the vehicle you were driving at the time."

Ms Mcnaughton tendered the note into evidence.

Questions:   "The Commission has access to the records for that phone number you've just written down.   The records show that you were not in the office on the afternoon of 28 March, the time  you say you inspected the documents in the office.   If you'd lost your phone, you would be the diligent type of manager who would take immediate action to get it back wouldn't you.   How do you explain your evidence that you were in the office inspecting documents at that time?'

He can't.

There's an entry for 28 March 2014, 7.04 AM - in the last column is the word Brighton - would you accept from me that the user of that service at that time was in Brighton.  Mr Ravbar's home is in that area.

The bottom entry for that page at 8.05AM - Bowen Hills South.   The CFMEU office is in that area.

Ms McNaughton read from the lengthy list of mobile phone tower connections showing the location of Mr Ravbar's phone during the day.   By 11AM he'd left the office and by 2PM he was at Brisbane airport, not to return to the office at all for the rest of the day.

Ravbar has given evidence that he was certain he spent the afternoon of Friday 28 March in the office going through the documents.  He can't explain the discrepancy.

He states that he is certain that he spent an afternoon diligently going through the documents.

Ms McNaughton, "Well we've only got your word on that, and we now know that you were "mistaken" in your evidence that happened on Friday, 28 March.   Are you only saying now that you inspected the BLF documents before the document disposal because you are now aware that you may face serious charges in relation to destroying evidence?"

Ravbar, "Well there's only one witness statement that says that."

Ms McNaughton moved to the camera cover-up allegations made by two independent witnesses.   Ravbar states he was working facing a bench inspecting documents with his back towards the camera and he would not have noticed that someone was up at the level of the cameras covering them.

Ravbar was given a chance - but he stood by his evidence that he didn't instruct anyone to cover the cameras and he only found out about it two weeks later.

He was asked whether he gave instructions for documents to be removed to the Hanna property - he says he did not.

McNaughton, "How did you understand that the documents would be disposed of?"

Dave did it.  After a lot of discussion he agrees that he did actually direct Hanna to dispose of the material.  He claims he didn't know Hanna took the stuff to his property and attempted to burn it instead of taking the material immediately to the tip until two weeks ago.

Ms McNaughton had Mr Ravbar agree that he was responsible for the security of the information in the documents and that he was the sort of diligent boss who fully informed himself of material matters to the CFMEU. He directed Hanna to organise the destruction of the CFMEU/BLF documentation - but he claims he didn't follow up about what happened to the material after it left the office.

He is sure he learned about the Notice to Produce only on the 2nd of April.

Ms McNaughton, "Can I show you these documents?"

Chronology shown in the documents shows that the Process Server serve the Notice to Produce shortly before 2PM on 1 April 2014.   Within 15 minutes the documents had been scanned and by 1.22PM Queensland time (2.22PM in Melbourne) the documents had been distributed to the senior members of the CFMEU national office.

By 4.15 on 1 April an email had arrived in Mr Ravbar's office with all the details of and instructions about the Notice to Produce.   Ravbar sticks with the story he didn't check his emails until late on the following morning.

I wish they asked him if his emails appear on his iPhone or similar.

Ravbar said he read the Notice to Produce documents in full that following morning.   Did he understand what the Notice meant? "Been there, done that, I knew what a Notice to Produce meant".

He wasn't concerned that the material he'd sent for disposal the night before might have been caught by the Notice as he read it that morning.

He states he had to go through the BLF documents because he "didn't trust Dave Hanna".   Ms McNaughton, "You didn't trust Dave Hanna, but you gave him the job of taking away and securely disposing of  your CFMEU documents?"

That was just grunt work apparently.

He agrees that he authorised the invoice from Harrington's for payment - he is surprised that a tip truck had been ordered but he paid it anyway.   The tip truck was used on 4 April - Ravbar has been given evidence that he believed the documents had already been destroyed by then.

Ravbar agrees that 1 April was an inconvenient day to introduce the extra work of the document shredding and disposal - because of deadlines with other work occurring on that day.   Extra people were brought in to do that work, staff were told to remain for hours after work to get the job done.  The fact that it happened on the day and after the time the Notice to Produce was served on the union is purely coincidental according to Mr Ravbar.

McNaughton, "Why did it all have to be done in that very concentrated and short period of time when you've said the documents had been an issue for months?"

Ravbar put together a series of words that affected me like a anaesthetic, I could play the tape again but I'm sure the same result would ensue.  Part of the answer was that the way Hanna managed documents at the BLF was a disgrace.

McNaughton, "When you found out the cameras had been covered up two weeks later, did you do anything about it?"

The answer was a bit aimless and rambling until Ravbar remembered his story that Hanna gave the order to cover the cameras up, then with a jolt the story became one of the Hanna disgrace and paranoia about security.   But even with their ferocious hatred and campaigns against each other, well, "People have different styles about the way they go about business, and David, well we've seen with the Royal Commissions the way David goes about secrecy......and at the end of the day, did I reprimand him? No."

  McNaughton, "Wouldn't it have been your usual practice to engage a commercial document destruction to take the documents away and securely dispose of them?"

"I was never concerned about what went to the tip because I went through all the material.   The Union has met every Notice to Produce and you can go on and get all the media coverage you like but at the end of the day this union is.....", sorry, the mental anaesthetic thing again.

AT 1PM THE COMMISSION ADJOURNED FOR A FEW PEOPLE TO GO OUTSIDE AND TAKE A LONG HARD LOOK AT THEMSELVES

#CFMEU state secretary not 'sure' if he saw email asking for paperwork #turc http://t.co/9VeF84cl8J pic.twitter.com/Q3YcLB8NAP

— ABC News (@abcnews) September 24, 2015

AT 2PM THE COMMISSION RESUMED

 

Ms McNaughton hooked in from the start after lunch.

Ravbar was quizzed on his previous evidence that he sometimes uses mobile phones other than his own.   He said he has adopted that practice for the past year or so.   He states the reason he doesn't use his own phone for all calls is a desire for privacy.   He says some union business should stay private - a bit of a jump to suggest that aim is achieved by using someone else's phone - that is unless Ravbar believes his own phone may be the subject of an interception warrant.   As Mr Ravbar would know, that would only be the case if there was reason to suspect Ravbar is involved in a serious indictable offence(s) - only Mr Ravbar would know if that was the case.   So fascinating insights in that series of questions and answers.

Ms McNaughton picked up on the 4 day delay between the removal of the documents from the CFMEU office and the use of Harrington's transport and their tip-truck to take the documents to the tip.   During those days Mr Ravbar unequivocally knew about the Notice to Produce.   When the invoice for the tip truck arrived, Mr Ravbar authorised it for payment.   He did that verbally.   He was fine with the stuff that was buried, sorry sent to the tip.   He doesn't remember talking about authorising Sheree to pay the invoice, other than Sheree coming to see him later on to say that David wanted payment for the stuff that went to the tip.   Fair dinkum!

Around 2.20PM Ms McNaughton completed her examination of Mr Ravbar - the Commission adjourned for a few minutes to allow Counsel for other parties to seek instructions on cross examination.

2.35 now and the Commission's website stream tells us the Commission has not resumed for what was said to be a 2.25 resumption.

AT 2.41 THE COMMISSION RESUMED AFTER MR AGIUS QC SOUGHT FURTHER TIME FOR PREPARATION OF HIS EXAMINATION OF HIS CLIENT RAVBAR

Mr Agius is doing his best to write Mr Ravbar out of the cack, futile, but still his best.

Shortly before 3PM Mr Agius completed the re-examination of his client Ravbar.

The Commission addressed a few housekeeping matters in the management of tendered exhibits.

AT 3PM Mr Hanna returned to the witness box for cross-examination.

Ms McNaughton had a few questions that elicited this from Hanna.

He recalls telling a CFMEU finance staffer that it would be best if she disposed of the invoice for transporting the NTP documents.   he says he told her to do that because of the nature of the document that were dumped.

Hanna answers Agius's questions about who gave the instruction to cover the cameras - Hanna says Ravbar made the decision, he was worried about the cameras - in conversation it was noted at the time that the cameras and recorder couldn't be turned off, so Ravbar decided they should be covered up.

Mr Agius QC has been quite effective in proving the proposition that each of his client Ravbar and hostile witness Hanna are vipers, thugs and paranoid tyrants who rule by fear.  Workers should know how their union bosses run their own businesses and are the masters of the horrible practices they accuse business leaders of.

Agius really got under Hanna's skin, "Why do you think you got $200,000 of free work on your house?"   

Hanna said "I never took a fucking thing from that union."

After Mr Agius's cross examination Mr Hanna was allowed to leave the witness box but was not excused from further attendance on the Commission's Summons.

No other witnesses were recalled for cross examination.

That concluded the oral evidence to be heard in the natter of the CFMEU Document Destruction allegations.

The Commissioner discussed the timetable for submissions, replies and the timetable for his final report.

THE COMMISSION IS ADJOURNED UNTIL A PUBLIC HEARING IN SYDNEY ON THURSDAY 1 OCTOBER 2015