The boss of one of Canberra's most powerful unions is suing Liberal leader Jeremy Hanson after he questioned whether union officials who "potentially are facing criminal charges" should be given access to government tender documents.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
or signup to continue reading
CFMEU secretary Dean Hall launched defamation action against Mr Hanson last week over an interview on talkback radio station 2CC in March.
Mr Hanson was on the station to discuss revelations of an agreement between the government and UnionsACT that gave unions a role in procurement decisions.
The federal government had criticised the agreement, saying it gave unions an effective veto power in ACT government procurement, a claim Chief Minister Andrew Barr denied.
Mr Hanson spoke on air with 2CC broadcaster Tim Shaw on March 16, immediately after an interview with UnionsACT secretary Alex White.
According to documents filed in the ACT Supreme Court, the Opposition Leader said: "Do we want people like Dean Hall, who runs the CFMEU, or others who potentially are facing charges or have been convicted of charges, ah, given access to, ah, company documents?"
Mr Hall, represented by Slater and Gordon, has launched defamation action against 2CC and Mr Hanson personally.
The union boss argued that Mr Hanson's comments implied that, having either been convicted of, or facing, criminal charges, he was so untrustworthy or dishonest that he ought not be given access to tender documents.
He claimed Mr Hanson's comments also implied he might misuse the documents.
Mr Hall has one entry on his criminal history for drink driving more than a decade ago, before he worked for unions.
Two men linked to the CFMEU, John Lomax and Fihi Kivalu, were charged with criminal offences after the unions royal commission.
A charge of blackmail against Mr Lomax was dropped last year, well before the interview, while Kivalu, a former CFMEU official, had pleaded guilty to a blackmail charge at the time of Mr Hanson's comments.
A defence is yet to be formally filed to Mr Hall's defamation claim, but it is likely to prove an unwelcome distraction for Mr Hanson in the lead-up to October's ACT election.
It could also pose a significant financial burden, as defending defamation actions is notoriously difficult and costly.
Court documents state Mr Shaw's radio show had an audience of about 7000 people, and the interview was later published on two websites.
Mr Hall's defamation claim said: "By reason of the publication of [Mr Hanson]'s words, [Mr Hall] has been gravely injured in his feelings, credit and reputation, has been humiliated and embarrassed and has suffered loss and damage."
Two days after the interview, Mr Hall's lawyers wrote to Mr Hanson to seek an apology and retraction, and demanded the podcast be removed from 2CC's website.
Mr Hall's statement of claim said the defendants rejected those demands.
"The first defendant [Jeremy Hanson] did not and has not retracted his words or apologised," the claims said.
"The first defendant's solicitors asserted that the first defendant's words were completely defensible and that the plaintiff's claim is frivolous, not genuine, and constituted contempt against a House of Parliament."
