Editorial: Latest outrageous reason probe into militant union was long overdue

The outrageous deal between the CFMEU and police is one of the many reasons the current inquiry was desperately needed, writes the editor.

A CFMEU protest in Brisbane

The outrageous memorandum of understanding that effectively handed over the policing of union matters on worksites to bureaucrats instead of cops is one of the many reasons the CFMEU inquiry was desperately needed.

Yesterday, the inquiry heard from Australian Workers’ Union state branch leader Stacey Schinnerl, who questioned why the CFMEU in Queensland was “called out with their own special treatment” in the MOU.

She said she believed this agreement allowed them easier access to worksites.

The agreement also stated police should defer to the Office of Industrial Relations for matters of disputed entry to worksites.

And the inquiry has previously heard police were reluctant to get involved in worksite disputes, which often turned violent.

MOUs have a chequered history in Queensland, with the most infamous being the one signed between the police union and the then opposition in Queensland, led by Rob Borbidge in the 1990s.

That agreement contained promises from the Coalition, including improved pay and conditions, aimed at winning the support of the influential union.

The Coalition went on to win government via the Mundingburra by-election in 1996, with critics saying the MOU swayed the result.

The agreement between police and the CFMEU has the potential to cause wider ramifications as the inquiry unravels how it came to be.

TOUGH FISCAL MEDICINE

Treasurer Jim Chalmers wants us to focus on the good news in the latest national economic data – a big surge in private-sector investment.

But like a magician hiding a card in his left hand, he hopes we’ll be distracted enough to ignore the bad news – continuing high levels of government spending.

In crude terms, if you want sustainable economic growth, private sector investment is the way to go – it’s more likely to create jobs and wealth.

Government spending is, often, simply redistributing some of that wealth either collected through taxes or borrowed.

Of course, governments need to spend, to provide all the services and infrastructure we demand – from roads and bridges to health and defence.

But when both private and public spending are roaring along at high levels, it can drive up inflation, which is exactly what’s happening now.

The annual inflation rate rose to 3.8 per cent in October, above the Reserve Bank’s target band of 2-3 per cent.

And that means there’s no chance of an interest-rate cut in the foreseeable future following three rate cuts earlier this year when the RBA thought the inflation genie was back in the bottle.

In fact, some forecasters are predicting another rate increase.

A logical way to reduce inflation pressure would be to cut government spending to make room for the jump in private sector investment – now at its highest level in more than four years.

But that would require an unprecedented change in philosophy from the federal Labor government, which has sharply increased public spending since winning office in mid-2022.

There are now more than 200,000 commonwealth public servants – 40,000 more than four years ago, costing $30bn in wages. Net debt is also up by about 20 per cent.

It’s also faced massive cost overruns in its landmark NDIS scheme now running at more than $50bn a year, massively more than initially forecast.

The government seems to have finally recognised the bind it’s in. Finance Minister Katy Gallagher recently revealed government agencies must find savings of up to 5 per cent, for a theoretical annual saving of $5.6bn.

But announcing and delivering are two different things, particularly when you’re dealing with public sector mandarins, expert at protecting their fiefdoms.

The government is also negotiating with the states to cover one of the biggest NDIS cost items – the recent huge surge in autism cases, which once would have been a state responsibility.

But that won’t solve the problem of what to do with the NDIS itself, which despite its honourable intentions, has been designed in such a way as to make rorting and over-servicing almost inevitable.

One indicator of how committed the federal government is to curbing its spending will be whether Dr Chalmers uses his looming budget update to extend the government’s household subsidies for energy bills due to expire at the end of the year.

He could use the money, but politically it’s a risky move.

Will politics or fiscal responsibility win out?

We’re about to find out.

Responsibility for election comment is taken by Chris Jones, corner of Mayne Rd & Campbell St, Bowen Hills, Qld 4006. Printed and published by NEWSQUEENSLAND (ACN 009 661 778). Contact details here