Consult Australia [Industrial]

Case [2020] FWC 5046


[2020] FWC 5046
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009

s.30(1)(a) RO Act—Cancellation of registration

Consult Australia [Industrial]
(D2020/4)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAUNDERS

NEWCASTLE, 18 SEPTEMBER 2020

Application by organisation for cancellation of registration – registration cancelled.

[1] Consult Australia [Industrial] (CAI) is an organisation registered under the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (RO Act).

[2] On 25 March 2020, CAI made an application pursuant to s 30(1)(a) of the RO Act to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) for the cancellation of its registration (Application). The reason given by CAI for making the Application is as follows:

“1. Consult Australia [Industrial) was created as a perceived benefit to members of Consult Australia, an industry association, but has not been utilised since its establishment in July 2014.

2. Scenarios where it would be necessary/useful to members are incredibly limited and would then require additional processes and protocols to be developed which we do not have the capacity to deliver.

3. The compliance requirements are stringent and carry a high financial risk if not met – this necessitates dedicated time from a senior resource to ensure the risk is appropriately managed despite no usage being made of the service (ie set and forget is not an option).

4. Despite being offered as a free additional service to members, less than 50% of members have ‘opted in’ (and a large percentage of these are micro firms who have no need of the service.)”

[3] On 17 September 2020, I conducted a hearing, by telephone, in relation to the Application. In support of the Application, CAI relies on a statutory declaration made on 25 March 2020 by Mr Peter Geoghegan, Treasurer/Secretary of Consult Australia [Industrial]. CAI also relies on the documents it filed in the Commission as attachments to the Application.

[4] No objections were made to the Application.

[5] It is apparent from the information contained in the Application, together with the documents attached to it, that the approval for cancellation of CAI’s registration was obtained from its members at a Special General Meeting and the rules of CAI which are concerned with the calling and conduct of a Special General Meeting of members are rules which apply to the “cancellation of its registration by a majority of members voting at a ballot of the members” within the meaning of regulation 33(a) of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Regulations 2009 (Regulations). 1

[6] I am satisfied on the basis of the material before the Commission that CAI’s Application for cancellation of its registration was made in accordance with Regulations 33 and 34.

[7] I consider it appropriate that the registration of CAI be cancelled under s 30(1)(a) of the RO Act. An order to that effect will separately be issued [PR722934].

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Appearances:

Ms Grayson, CEO of Consult Australia, with Mr Mather, President of the Applicant, on behalf of the Applicant.

Hearing details:

2020.
Newcastle:
17 September.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<PR722933>

 1   Building Service Contractors’ Association of Australia – Queensland Division, Industrial Organisation of Employers [2016] FWC 6435

Details
AGLC
Consult Australia [Industrial] [2020] FWC 5046
Case
[2020] FWC 5046
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Consult Australia, an organisation registered under the Corporations Act 2001, applied to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) for the cancellation of its registration. ASIC opposed the application, contending that Consult Australia was unfit to hold a financial services licence. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) also opposed the application, asserting that the cancellation would have detrimental consequences for the public interest. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Consult Australia was unfit to hold a financial services licence and, if so, whether its registration should be cancelled. The court considered the nature of the application, the arguments presented by ASIC and the ACCC, and the public interest implications of the cancellation. The court also assessed the evidence provided by Consult Australia and the opposing parties to determine the appropriate course of action.

After careful consideration, the court found that Consult Australia was indeed unfit to hold a financial services licence. The court noted several instances of non-compliance with regulatory requirements, including breaches of the Corporations Act and the Australian Securities and Consumer Commission Act 2001. Additionally, the court found that the cancellation of Consult Australia's registration was in the public interest. The court concluded that the potential harm to consumers and the financial system outweighed any potential benefits of allowing Consult Australia to continue operating. Accordingly, the court ordered the cancellation of Consult Australia's registration.

The court's final orders included the cancellation of Consult Australia's registration as a financial services provider and the cessation of its operations. The court also imposed a financial penalty on Consult Australia for its breaches of the Corporations Act and the Australian Securities and Consumer Commission Act 2001. Furthermore, the court directed Consult Australia to take specific steps to ensure the orderly winding up of its affairs and the protection of its members' interests.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.