Bikies, Bosses, and Bullsh*t: The Truth About the CFMEU Takeover
The recent media reports regarding the CFMEU and its ongoing High Court challenge paint a one sided picture of the union’s administration and the legitimate fight of its members to restore democracy and due process. It is crucial to challenge the narrative being pushed by government-appointed administrator Mark Irving and the vested interests backing his position.
Contrary to claims that the High Court challenge is “stymying” efforts to clean up the union, the reality is that it is a necessary fight to restore democratic processes within the CFMEU. The forced removal of elected officials by the Albanese government, without allowing members a say, is an affront to union democracy and undermines the principles of natural justice.
Members have every right to question an administration imposed by the state, particularly when it was installed in response to a media-driven exposé rather than through any due process initiated by the union’s rank and file. The High Court challenge represents an attempt to return the union to its members and prevent government overreach into independent workers’ organisations. If the government really wanted to help construction workers, maybe they should try fixing dodgy site safety instead of playing CEO of the CFMEU.
The claims that members are hesitant to come forward due to fear of reprisals are deeply problematic and serve as a convenient way to justify the continued government control of the CFMEU. If allegations of corruption and intimidation are genuine, they should be handled by law enforcement agencies with appropriate due process, not used as an excuse to circumvent the democratic will of union members and their organisations.
Moreover, the claim that figures such as Mick Gatto “came with the furniture” lacks verifiable evidence and relies heavily on insinuation rather than concrete proof of wrongdoing. Construction is also one of the only industries that allows people with colourful pasts to reintegrate into the workforce, and this is a widespread reality across the sector. It is absolutely outrageous to suggest that union delegates should be booted out if they have a criminal history. These delegates are democratically elected by their workmates, last time we checked, that’s how democracy works, What’s next, banning people with tattoos from working in construction?
The reports presented at Senate estimates highlight various allegations, yet they fail to address a fundamental issue: due process. It is not for a government appointed administrator to determine guilt or innocence. The CFMEU, like any democratic institution, has mechanisms for investigating misconduct, including independent tribunals and member-driven accountability measures.
If wrongdoing has occurred, it must be proven in a transparent and impartial manner not through trial by media or politically motivated interventions. The fact that the administration has struggled to gain full cooperation from members suggests not a culture of intimidation, but a deep seated distrust of the imposed leadership. Can you blame them? Nobody joins a union to get represented by Bosses. And let’s be real most workers already have one overpaid boss making bad decisions for them. They don’t need another one parachuted in by the government.
The transfer of legal funds to defend former NSW Secretary Darren Greenfield and his son Michael Greenfield has been framed as inappropriate. However, unions routinely allocate resources to defend officials facing legal challenges, particularly when those challenges arise from alleged wrongdoing, infact you will find that most if not all unions will use union money to protect their employees of alleged wrongdoing in the process of doing their job. The decision to allocate funds was made by the NSW branch prior to administration and reflected the members’ interests at the time.
It is also worth questioning the motives behind the scrutiny of these legal fees ,similar scrutiny must be applied to the administrator’s use of union funds. How much has been spent on administration salaries, external consultants, and legal fees for the administrator’s own purposes? It has been reported that the CFMEU imposed Administrator has now all but cleared the National Offices Funds and is now dipping into branch resources. Transparency must be a two way street. If we’re going to play watchdog, let’s make sure we’re barking at the right people. And if the government is so concerned about misusing funds, maybe they should take a look at some of their own spending—how much are we paying politicians to ‘review’ unions instead of the corrupt and neglient bosses in the construction industry?
It is no secret that the federal government has long sought to weaken our union. The CFMEU has been one of the strongest and most effective unions in the country, securing significant wage gains and improved conditions for workers in an industry notorious for employer exploitation.
By installing an administrator, the government has effectively sidelined an organisation that has historically been a thorn in the side of big business and conservative policymakers. This move is not about cleaning up corruption, it is about exerting control over one of the most powerful voices for workers in Australia. Let’s not pretend this is some heroic cleanup operation, this is political meddling, pure and simple. If they really cared about the industry, they’d be going after dodgy bosses, not democratically elected union leaders.
The CFMEU is, first and foremost, an organisation built by and for workers. It is the members, not a government appointed administrator, who should decide its future. The High Court challenge is not an obstacle to progress but a necessary step in ensuring that the union remains in the hands of the workers it represents.
Any allegations of corruption must be addressed through proper legal channels, not through undemocratic takeovers and trial by media. The union movement must remain vigilant against political interference and continue to fight for the right to govern itself, free from government intervention that serves business interests over those of workers.
The CFMEU is not the government’s to control. It belongs to its members. And if the government or media think they can spin this as some noble crusade, well, the workers of this country aren’t buying it. Maybe next time, instead of trying to run a union, they can focus on running the country properly.