Ousted CFMEU leaders lose High Court challenge to take back union

Former CFMEU leaders have lost their High Court challenge against federal Labor's takeover of the scandal-plagued building union.
The High Court threw out the case on Wednesday in a unanimous decision that rejected former union officials' attempt to wrest back control from a government-appointed administrator who stepped in to clean up the union last year.
The government passed laws to oust most of the union's leadership after the Building Bad investigation by this masthead, The Australian Financial Review and 60 Minutes last year reported allegations of corruption and infiltration by bikie gangs.
The court's decision to uphold the government's forced take-over of the union will remove a roadblock for administrator Mark Irving, who had warned that the spectre of the CFMEU's former leaders returning to the organisation was hampering his efforts to reform it.
Irving welcomed the court's decision on Wednesday, saying in a statement the 'attack on the legitimacy of the administration' was dismissed by the court.
'The administration is committed to returning the union to the membership as a strong, democratic, member-controlled union, enduringly free of corruption and criminal influence as soon as possible,' he said.
Former Queensland CFMEU construction secretary Michael Ravbar, who has not been accused of wrongdoing, led the challenge and said members were disappointed, but they put up a good fight.
'What this result does show, however, is just how easy it is for hostile governments in cahoots with the ACTU to interfere in the operations and running of democratically run unions,' he said.
'It took little more than spurious allegations broadcast on a tabloid current affairs program. That should be of deep concern to any trade unionist.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Perth Now

42 minutes ago

• Perth Now

Australia's big call on Iran strikes

Foreign Minister Penny Wong has confirmed the Australian government's support for the US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities on Sunday. Donald Trump confirmed the strikes on three of Iran's nuclear facilities on Sunday, saying the US had dropped a 'full payload of bombs'. Labor did not hold a press conference on Sunday following the strikes, instead issuing comment via a government spokesperson acknowledging Mr Trump's statement while continuing calls for 'de-escalation, dialogue and diplomacy'. Asked on Today on Monday morning whether the government supported the strike on Iran, Senator Wong said they 'support action to prevent Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon'. 'And that is what this is – so your answer, the answer is yes,' she said. Foreign Minister Penny Wong has said Australia supports the US' strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. NewsWire / Brenton Edwards Credit: News Corp Australia 'I've said that upfront.' Host Karl Stefanovic pressed Senator Wong on whether support for the US strike contradicted the government's position of advocating for de-escalation. 'Oh, what I said was Iran had to come to the negotiating table, and we urged Iran to come back to the negotiating table and engage in diplomacy,' Senator Wong said. 'It's the same thing – I think the US President was saying it's the same thing, that Prime Minister Starmer was saying it's the same thing … but we are where we are now. 'The question is what happens next.' Opposition Leader Sussan Ley and Liberal frontbencher Andrew Hastie promptly shared a joint statement on Sunday, saying the Coalition 'stands with the United States of America today'. 'The Coalition supports actions taken by the United States of America to ensure that the Iranian regime is stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons,' it said. 'While Australians will never seek conflict in the world, we can never forget that the Iranian regime is a militantly theocratic autocracy. 'It expressly seeks the destruction of our allies, enacts extrajudicial killings of political dissidents and brutally represses the rights of women and girls. 'It is the Iranian people who are the victims of this brutal regime and we stand in solidarity with them.' More to come

The Age

4 hours ago

• The Age

No backing out now for Labor. Chalmers has set the tone, and the goal, for term two

At base, this is about making the budget add up – people can ask for tax cuts, but only if taxes are raised elsewhere or spending is cut. Mostly, though, Chalmers has, quite properly, reminded us that tax reform is unavoidably a political project. 'Trade-offs' are, traditionally, the very essence of politics: something is gained and something is lost. Crucially, this is a very different type of politics for the Albanese government. Labor's first term was not much about trade-offs. With a couple of exceptions, it was mostly about shepherding change through quietly: making sure that nobody was losing enough that they would complain. Now, it seems, the government will contemplate policies with much more dramatic impacts – impacts everyone will notice. Significant losses will be matched by equally significant gains. The political complexity lies in who bears the losses and who gets the gains. It was a strikingly bold – and potentially historic – moment for Labor. Loading Two weeks ago, the Coalition's finance spokesman, James Paterson, insisted the Coalition was up for talking to the government about tax reform, including reducing taxes and then collecting 'that revenue in less distortionary ways'. That sounded a lot like higher taxes in some areas. But, he also said, the opposition would not help Labor 'increase taxes'. 'But isn't that tax reform?' asked the ABC's David Speers. 'You're gonna have to put something up to cut somewhere else.' Paterson insisted, 'We are not interested in increasing taxes'. You can perhaps, if you squint, make sense of this – it will be up to new opposition leader Sussan Ley, in her own turn at the Press Club this week, to try. The likelihood is that Chalmers will face a version of what Keating faced: support for some bits, but not for the others that make them politically plausible. Chalmers talked a lot about consensus in his speech. Reaching agreement would be 'everyone's responsibility'. It's an important point. It is also a useful point to make at this stage of the process: after all, it is Chalmers' job to push everyone towards agreement by making clear the government shouldn't be expected to do all of this by itself. Loading But what if, in the end, there is not consensus? Or what if consensus forms only around a very limited set of changes? Chalmers declared, 'if we fail it won't be because of a shortage of ideas, options or choices. It won't be a shortage of courage – but a shortage of consensus.' Ultimately, though, if there is not consensus, courage will be required. If you read Chalmers' words as a persuasive tactic, they are fair enough. If, on the other hand, the government thinks it has given itself an alibi, it is kidding itself. The goal has been set. Political embarrassment would not be the only consequence of a retreat on tax reform. Keating's mentions of Medicare and superannuation are reminders that economic reform does not have to be only about tax. Instead, tax changes can take their place within a grander Labor project, alongside other concrete policies, the benefits of which voters more readily grasp. But it is hard to see how that larger Labor project works if tax reform fails.

Sky News AU

4 hours ago

• Sky News AU

Don't sit on the fence with this one Albanese: Australia must recommit to US alliance as Middle East tensions mount

Anthony Albanese wasn't the only disappointed global leader left in line for an audience with the President when Donald Trump made an early exit from the G7 summit in Calgary. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt explained that 'many important matters' demanded the President's attention in Washington. Important compared to what? At a moment of global conflict there can be few things more vital than reaffirming the bonds with trusted allies. The contrast with the response to the 9/11 attacks is stark. Within hours of the attacks, John Howard wrote to President George W Bush, affirming Australia's 'resolute solidarity' with the American people. The following day he pledged unconditional support for the US 'in any action that might be taken'. However we choose to judge the course of events that followed, Howard's reaction reflected a clarity of moral purpose that appears to be faltering. Australia knew where it stood: shoulder to shoulder with the United States in defence of the liberal democratic order. The Western alliance has grown uncertain. Under Donald Trump, US commitments have become more transactional. Meanwhile, under Albanese, Australia is hedging like other middle powers, caught between strategic dependence on the U.S. and economic entanglement with China. Pragmatism in diplomacy is unavoidable, but pragmatism should never give way to ambivalence. There is little discussion today in Washington or Canberra about the values, the once underpinned our alliances: liberal democracy, personal liberty and the rule of law. The concept of the civilised West has become so disreputable in some circles leaders hesitate to declare themselves part of it. Deciding which side we are on when the chips are down is nowhere near as simple as it once was. Labor's discomfort with these foundations is not new. While historically loyal to Britain, the party was wary of imperial wars and later divided over the U.S. alliance. Gough Whitlam was openly critical of U.S. foreign policy while drawing closer to Communist China. At a banquet host by Premier Zhou Enlai in Beijing in 1973, Whitlam declared that Australia's future lay with nations 'with whom we share a common environment and common interests … With no nation is our new aspiration symbolised more than it is with China'. The trade relationship with China has deepened, growing from almost nothing in 1973 to more than $300 billion in annual two-way trade today. Yet there has been no equivalent meeting of minds on the profound human values that define civilisation. Sky News Australia viewers will be familiar with the case of Australian journalist Cheng Lei who spent almost three years as an innocent detainee in China, an experience she compares to being buried alive. We know that more than a million Uyghurs are suffering a worse fate in discriminatory detention. China boasts of its intention to seize Taiwan by military force if necessary. Nor is subtle about its projection of naval force close to our shores as it seeks to establish dominance across the Pacific and into the Southern Ocean. To put it bluntly, there are strict limits to the common interests we share with China so long as it is led by a Communist regime irredeemably opposed to the human values we cherish. We must enter any dealings with China with our eyes wide open, just as we should with other untrustworthy regimes in Tehran, Moscow and Tehran. There can be no confusion about which nations we can trust, the nations of a civilised frame of mind, governed by the rule of law, with respect for the rights of sovereignty. Israel's conflict with Iran is a case in point. Albanese must look beyond policy disagreements over Gaza and recognise Israel as a fellow liberal democracy under siege by a theocratic regime that sponsors terrorism and seeks its annihilation. When he next meets with the U.S. President, Albanese must speak with conviction. He should reaffirm that, through thick and thin, Australia stands with the United States not out of dependency, but as a partner in defending the free world. He must be clear that, in this new age of strategic competition, our interests align. We do not seek favours—we seek solidarity. To adapt the words of John F. Kennedy: the question is not what America can do for us, but what we can do, again, for the alliance that has underpinned our security for generations. Nick Cater is a senior fellow of the Menzies Research Centre