Workplace relations minister Tony Abbott has called for an inquiry into the construction industry, alleging widespread corruption, fraud and intimidation of workers. What this really represents is a blatant political offensive against the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union.

Abbott has justified the call for an inquiry into the construction industry on the basis of a rapidly prepared report from the government’s “employment advocate”, Jonathan Hamberger — a report that Abbott himself commissioned at the beginning of May. Behind the scenes, however, is a desperate minister scurrying to exploit an internal union battle.

According to Hamberger’s 10-page report, which was handed to Abbott on May 15, allegations about corruption in the construction industry are widespread. They are purported to include “misuse of [union] funds, abuse of authority and breaches of company and taxation laws” plus allegations that union officials accept bribes and secret commissions, that workers are being harassed by union officials and false claims about safety are made to close down building sites.

Many of the allegations are based on hearsay or witnesses who apparently are too intimidated to talk. Some branches of the union do not even rate a mention.

Abbott's call for an inquiry reflects undisguised animosity toward unions that are successfully maintaining membership levels and pushing forward on benefits for their members. The Victorian branch of the CFMEU was part of a successful campaign for shorter working hours last year and the mining division has sustained an ongoing propaganda war against corporate giants like Rio Tinto.

Abbott has attempted to capitalise on divisions within the CFMEU between the leaderships of the construction division branches in NSW on the one hand and Victoria and Western Australia, on the other, and between the latter two branches and CFMEU construction division national secretary John Sutton.

Differences within the union over industrial tactics and announcement of an electoral challenge against Sutton have been widely publicised by the corporate media. In addition, Sutton had called for the National Crime Authority to investigate allegations of corruption within the construction industry. This must have seemed like a charmed offering to Abbott, who has not yet reached the union-bashing heights of his predecessor’s attack on the maritime union.

On May 11, CFMEU national secretary John Maitland issued a statement declaring that union leaders had agreed on a mechanism to resolve their differences. Maitland went on to condemn the Howard government for its cynical effort to obtain political advantage from the union's internal affairs.

Abbott was very quick to publicise allegations about corruption within the CFMEU to suit his own union-bashing agenda, but what about the body that has gathered these rumours and allegations?

The Office of the Employment Advocate (OEA) was established by then workplace relations minister Peter Reith in 1996 with the publicised aim of assisting and advising workers on their rights. Prior to being appointed as the head of the OEA, Jonathan Hamberger was a member of Reith's staff.

According to the CFMEU, the OEA has proved itself to be an active participant in the Howard government's assault on the legitimate role of unions.

In 1999 the OEA accused a CFMEU shop steward of breaching the Workplace Relations Act. The case was thrown out of the Federal Court because Hamberger obtained material by illegally taping conversations. The judge described the OEA as co-conspirators with the company and the OEA was ordered to pay costs against the CFMEU.

When the OEA attempted to revoke permits of two CFMEU organisers that enable them to access work sites to talk to union members and inspect records, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission dismissed the case on the grounds that the OEA was not an appropriate industrial body to challenge that right. The AIRC also described the OEA as acting in a prejudicial and partisan manner by issuing a press release on the matter before it had even been heard.

In November 2000 CFMEU members were excluded from a public conference in Tasmania where Hamberger was speaking. The exclusion suggested that some of his comments might be for the ears of employers only.

It is particularly obnoxious that Abbott, on behalf of the Howard government, has underhandedly created confusion and mischief about union affairs. Abbott, however, found himself in a contrary situation when HIH collapsed and the Howard government was initially reluctant to pursue a royal commission.

The pro-corporate and anti-union role of the completely misleadingly named OEA provides yet another reason why unionists need a greater push for repeal of the Workplace Relations Act. The CFMEU and all unions should be able to sort out their internal differences through open democratic practices that allow members to determine the outcomes, and without any interference of capitalist governments.

Tools

• Bookmark This Page
• Print This Page