Attack on democracy in the ACT CFMEU

Michael Hiscox, the acting secretary of the ACT branch of the CFMEU, was removed from his position and replaced by an unelected bureaucrat on 13 May. This came nine months after the union’s national office was put under administration by the federal Labor government, which removed the right of union members to elect their officials.

Labor justified its attack on the union by referring to media reports about alleged criminal behaviour in the union. There have been no allegations of such behaviour in the ACT branch, which, along with Western Australia, was not placed under administration last year.

The consequences of Mark Irving’s appointment as administrator are clear to anyone in doubt. Replacing elected officials with appointed administrators across every branch has brought restrictions on organisers’ and members’ rights to raise criticisms within the CFMEU and shape the union’s direction—an atmosphere unconducive to the kind of confident and militant organising that construction workers need to defend their working conditions and rates of pay.

“Labor has learned [from the deregistration of the BLF] how to best attack our union through this administration system: by passing a law that removes any unfair dismissal law for officials who get sacked for no reason”, Dusty Miller, a local CFMEU member and former member of the Builders Labourers’ Federation, told Red Flag. “Under the administration, there is no democracy. There is no ability for the union to have their own elections.”

The union’s former national secretary, Zach Smith, recently proposed a restructure to expand the role of the CFMEU’s national office. Less than two weeks before being removed from his position, Hiscox cosigned a statement opposing the restructure, stating that it “would only deprive rank and file members of having a voice in the way that their Union is run”.

So, what reason has Irving given for his intervention in the ACT branch? There are no charges of criminal activity, credible or otherwise, and no accusations of corruption or misconduct. The reason given was a drop in membership and a small budget deficit. But the union has plenty of cash reserves and a solid, loyal membership base—hardly a crisis.

Even if the branch were in crisis, government intervention would not be the solution. Its most likely effect will be the same as administration has had in every other branch: putting compliant organisers in positions of power while promoting fear and passivity in everyone else.

Miller said that many members have voiced their disgust at the move.

“We now have a person called Ben Davison sitting in the branch secretary’s office in Canberra, who doesn’t have a clue about anything with our industry, who doesn’t understand construction”, he said. “To me, it’s a payback to Michael and our branch because we stood up to this [centralisation] plan.”

The demotion of Hiscox should stand as clear proof that “cleaning up criminal or corrupt behaviour” was not the overriding purpose of the sackings, restrictions and centralisation. It was about disciplining a union with some industrial strength by punishing anyone speaking out.

Zach Smith announced on 22 May that he would step down as national secretary, presumably because of backlash against the proposed centralisation plan. It’s unclear what this means for the plan’s viability, but there will undoubtedly be ongoing pressure on people like Hiscox who speak out against the administration.

Miller has a clear message for members facing the degradation of their union’s democracy: “Stay strong and united. Stay strong and push back”.