Cleaning up the CFMEU starts with an inquiry

The it-takes-two-to tango response from the government serves no purpose other than to avoid taking responsibility for properly investigating what has or hasn’t occurred.

The CFMEU has been accused of serious misconduct. Picture: David Clark

I’m on the record calling for a judicial inquiry into the alleged CFMEU corruption that came to light last week, which seems a fairly modest suggestion given what’s at stake.

So I was a little surprised by the push-back from the government in response to this call, saying for every unionist engaged in stand­over tactics there’s a business­person also involved, on the basis that for everyone who takes a bribe there’s someone giving a bribe.

I’m not sure what this sentiment is intended to achieve, because it isn’t justification for not holding an inquiry into alleged serious corrupt conduct.

Is it intended to say I should be careful about what I call for in case questionable business conduct comes to light? Or is it put forward as a justification for the alleged corruption?

The it-takes-two-to tango response from the government serves no purpose other than to avoid taking responsibility for properly investigating what has or hasn’t occurred.

Similarly, to downplay the need for a royal commission because the previous one into unions didn’t call John Setka, can be easily fixed – appoint an independent person and call every relevant CFMEU official, and any other person involved.

The government has indicated it favours placing the CFMEU under administration, rather than deregistering the union. There are pros and cons for both approaches – administration allows a greater degree of control over the next steps, while deregistration potentially sends a stronger punitive signal.

These aren’t the only courses of action. Many, including the BCA, have called for the restoration of the ABCC as a means of policing union activities, and there’s certainly a lot of value in having another referee oversee the game.

But there’s even more value in winding back the tape to see who fouled who before we start pulling cards.

I don’t think it’s controversial to suggest you need a thorough understanding of what a problem is and why it’s occurring (and re-occurring) before you try to fix it. That would be the approach taken with respect to a structural defect on any building site.

It’s also the approach taken by most Australian governments. Indeed, we have dozens and dozens of territory, state and federal inquiries on foot right now, covering everything from telco network outages to aircraft noise.

I suggest preferencing allegedly criminally linked organisations for lucrative state contacts funded with taxpayer dollars is, at the very least, worthy of similar treatment.

People often criticise these kinds of inquiries as action-free talkfests. I get that. But the most serious of these – royal commissions and special commissions of inquiry – do have powers that are fundamental to uncovering truth: namely, the ability to compel people to attend and provide evidence and to provide documents.

That’s the only way we find out how far the rot goes.

In this instance, and given the extremely serious nature of the allegations, anything less than a royal commission shies away from the search for truth.

This inquiry – which must be at a federal level – should look at a range of issues: What’s happened and what are the underlying problems? Who’s involved, and who was aware of issues and when? What’s the economic impact of the alleged behaviour, particularly on house prices? What are the consequences for government procurement processes? How do we make sure this conduct cannot occur again?

And if this inquiry discovered there’s a business actively involved in bribery, the public deserves to know. That behaviour shouldn’t be allowed, and those responsible should be called out.

Scrutiny is also required now as the government is in the process of designing the structure for the Future Made in Australia (FMIA) contracts.

We wouldn’t want this program to be the subject of similar controversies down the track, which would undermine what could be very important and valuable projects.

A royal commission wouldn’t make findings in time to affect the awarding of FMIA contracts, but its recommendations would be important in the context of ongoing governance and assurance over what is intended to be a decade-long funding program.

The short point is that until we know how deep the CFMEU rabbit hole is we shouldn’t rule actions in or out. What matters is that we begin by establishing the truth, and that we acknowledge any action we do take now isn’t the result of a binary choice having been made – we can act now and we can also act later, after we have the considered the recommendations of a proper inquiry.

Of course, it isn’t convenient timing to have an inquiry into an area so closely connected to government spending, particularly in the lead-up to state and federal elections. But it’s always a good time to do the right thing.

We should never be afraid of uncovering the truth, and an inquiry with teeth is the only way we will.

Bran Black is the CEO of the Business Council of Australia.