CFMEU ‘treated as badly as Gaza and Lebanon’, leader claims

A union leader made the claim as the nation’s highest court heard arguments that legislation placing the union’s construction division into administration is invalid.

Protesters march in support of the CFMEU in Sydney. Picture: AFP

A CFMEU leader has said the building union is being treated no better than “people in Gaza and south Lebanon”, as barristers representing two sacked officials argue in the High Court that the legislation placing the construction division into administration is invalid.

As union officials vowed to continue the fight against the laws regardless, the nation’s highest court heard arguments that the Albanese government’s legislation was unconstitutional and breached the implied freedom of political communication.

Barristers representing sacked CFMEU Queensland secretary Michael Ravbar and his former deputy Kane Lowth argued the laws were “punitive” and breached the separation of powers.

Electrical Trade Union national secretary Michael Wright left the door open to donating to the Greens after the union ruled out funding Labor’s election war chest, declaring decisions on political donations had not been finalised. The ETU donated more than $1m to Labor for the 2022 federal election.

Union supporters descended on Parliament House on Tuesday as the case was being heard to protest the Albanese government’s crackdown on the CFMEU following allegations of misconduct and links to organised crime within the construction division.

CFMEU Victorian president Ralph Edwards told supporters the union had been treated unfairly when its construction division was placed into admin­istration, because the workers collective had “challenged the system that we live in”.

“We are being collectively punished … we are being treated no better, in one sense, than people in Gaza and the people in south Lebanon,” he said.

“We are being collectively punished because allegations are being made in the media, allegations are being made across, not only this country, but around the world, it’s being reported.

“And we have been found guilty without any hearing.”

CFMEU Queensland Secretary Michael Ravbar.

During the emotionally charged, expletive-laden speeches, union leaders pledged the union would continue to fight the government’s decision to place the construction and general divisions into administration.

Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union Victorian secretary Tony Mavromatis said his branch had backed the CFMEU because of the dangerous precedent Labor’s laws set, declaring that the only people consulted had been “fat cats and dirty rats”.

“If the laws aren’t right we just gotta fight,” he told the crowd.

In a marathon day of hearings, prominent barrister Bret Walker SC told the court that by barring the CFMEU from making political donations, the legislation placing the union into administration had “the purpose to limit political communication”.

Mr Walker – a High Court specialist who reportedly charges a rate of $25,000 a day – also argued the decision to place the CFMEU into administration had not been fair.

“The court can’t do anything that impinges on the freedom of political communication,” he said. “And rewrite, just for those locally, the freedom of political communication, just for them and not for anyone else.”

Mr Walker also argued the act of placing the CFMEU into administration shared characteristics with a “ judicial power” to punish the construction union, therefore overstepping the limits of legislative power.

“The kind of regime that may be imposed by orders in application of a court … the distinction couldn’t be starker in that kind of exercise of power in the exercise of a court,” he said.

He also argued the legislation was invalid as the CFMEU was not a “trading corporation” because the union was sustained by members’ dues. Under questioning from the bench, Mr Walker conceded this was in the form of money as was the “sad state of the world”.

Barrister Craig Lenehan SC argued the move to place the union into administration had been an “acquisition of property” which had not been carried out on “just terms” under the law.