Claims by senior Labor figures that allegations of CFMEU thuggery and intimidation were revelations to them were seriously undermined this past week. Victoria’s Planning Minister, Sonya Kilkenny, admitted to the media that she had received an email in 2020 that raised allegations of serious misconduct by the CFMEU. She also revealed that she had become aware of another complaint in 2022. She said it had been referred to the Fair Work Ombudsman, a referral that never occurred. Ms Kilkenny also revealed that the state’s Treasurer and Industrial Relations Minister, Tim Pallas, had known of the 2020 complaint, but had not acted upon it. This was because the company concerned was in a court dispute with the union.

It was reported that Ms Kilkenny had apologised to her Labor colleagues for publicly admitting she knew of the complaints about the CFMEU. Why did she apologise? For telling the truth? For admitting knowledge of complaints about the CFMEU? For breaching the Victorian government’s unofficial rule to never answer questions let alone answer frankly? Has it become an offence in the Labor party to be truthful?

Anyone associated with the building and construction industry over the past decade has been aware of the activities of the CFMEU. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

Rather than apologising, Ms Kilkenny should be commended for her willingness to acknowledge what had been in plain sight.

Claims by Labor that industrial action hasn’t increased since the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission are true, but they avoid the real issue. What has changed since the introduction of the ABCC is that the CFMEU members no longer simply down tools – that is, engage in unlawful industrial action like they used to. Rather, they have learned to use safety as an industrial weapon, and this is almost exclusively the method utilised to exert control on construction sites.

When the ABCC was introduced industrial action dropped. Industrial action hasn’t picked up since its abolition, as the former industrial relations minister, Tony Burke, likes to point out, because all industrial stoppages are now under the guise of a safety issue. Mr Burke also points out that much of the current activity occurred when the ABCC existed, which is also true. That’s because the ABCC model became outdated (and overly politicised) as the CFMEU worked out how to get around it. The  ABCC spent much time focusing on issues that weren’t that important, because there wasn’t that much unprotected industrial action to deal with. Worse, the commission wasn’t empowered to deal with the way the CFMEU started behaving.

Workplace safety is an important issue, but it has been cynically manipulated by the CFMEU. Real change needs to focus on the abuse of safety laws as that is what underpins the current CFMEU operating model. The rogue union’s modus operandi involves three aspects.

First, organisers are sent to a construction site every day to exercise a safety right of entry, harass the contractor, behave poorly and impact productivity until the contractor agrees to engage union-friendly workers, who are then voted in as health and safety representatives (HSR). This is done with impunity as the safety regulators in all states refuse to police the conduct of CFMEU organisers’ behaviour while conducting right of entry.

Secondly, HSRs sell union memberships, and control subcontractor engagement. If a construction company engages the ‘wrong’ subcontractor, the HSR will manufacture safety issues on site to impact productivity under their power to call a stoppage of work where there is a serious risk to health and safety. Again, safety regulators do nothing when these powers are misused.

Thirdly, the union intimidates employees of the contractor. Using bikies as HSRs has become popular because no one will stand up to them. The same approach is used against any safe work inspectors who don’t get the union’s memo! In Queensland, it is well known that many safe work inspectors are on stress leave because of the pattern of thuggery and intimidation.

If a Labor government decides to turn a blind eye to this pattern of conduct, there is no pressure on the safety regulators to be accountable. This pattern is repeated over and again, from project to project until the CFMEU controls the entire sector. The consequence is power in the hands of the wrong people, criminal infiltration, and governments and regulators who are afraid to act. It’s no surprise that tradespeople are lining up to join these enterprise agreements and work on government gravy train projects.

This model is completed by a union that controls votes in the Labor party. Not only does the CFMEU fund the Labor party generally, it provides critical electoral finance to candidates. The consequence is a vicious cycle of thuggery and intimidation, growing union membership, increasing funding of the Labor party and individual candidates, and an atmosphere in which there is a wilful blindness to corruption of the industrial system. The CFMEU is like a cancer, that having been previously retarded by the ABCC has found a new way to infect the industrial system with its corrupt behaviour. The contagion has spread beyond the nation’s building and construction sites; it now infects the Australian Labor party. It is little wonder that Labor figures are trying to distance themselves from the stench that is emanating  from the CFMEU.

Ordinary Australians are the victims, with lower productivity, higher prices and depressed economic outcomes. The real test of Labor’s sincerity is whether it is prepared to reform and enforce industrial laws to counter rogue behaviour, the misuse of health and safety concerns, and the use of  thuggery and intimidation.