A Union’s Reputation on Trial

The Commission of Inquiry into the CFMEU and Misconduct in the Construction Industry has shed light on the complex web of relationships between unions, politicians, and industry leaders in Australia. Geoffrey Watson SC, author of a damning report into the Queensland branch of the CFMEU, has been at the center of recent inquiry hearings, facing intense cross-examination over his methodology and findings.

Watson’s June 2025 report painted a picture of a union mired in violence and intimidation. It accused high-ranking officials, including Michael Ravbar and Kane Lowth, of orchestrating a campaign of abuse that led to a Queensland minister receiving police-recommended security upgrades. During the inquiry, Watson defended his report against allegations of unfair portrayal and factual inaccuracies.

A contentious aspect of the hearing involved an incident at an Australian Labor Party conference, where Ravbar allegedly demanded CFMEU delegates leave the event. Watson maintained that this account came from Australian Workers Union state secretary Stacey Schinnerl, who had not witnessed the incident but was told about it by another person. This exchange raised questions about whether parts of the report relied on hearsay or even hearsay upon hearsay.

This line of questioning has significant implications for the broader investigation into union misconduct. If Watson’s report relies on second-hand accounts and unverified sources, can its findings be trusted? Moreover, this raises questions about the inquiry’s own approach to gathering evidence.

The exchange between Watson and counsel Ruth O’Gorman KC highlighted a deeper issue: the relationship between unions, politicians, and industry leaders in Australia. The CFMEU has long been accused of exerting undue influence over the construction industry, and Watson’s report seemed to confirm this. However, what about the role of other stakeholders? Are they equally culpable in perpetuating a culture of intimidation and violence?

Watson’s outburst on Friday – “I’m not coming back” – was a telling moment in the inquiry. It suggested that even those who have devoted significant time and resources to the investigation are growing frustrated with the pace and tenor of the proceedings.

The inquiry has yet to produce any concrete findings or recommendations for reform. However, as it continues, one thing is clear: the reputation of the CFMEU is on trial, but so too are the relationships between unions, politicians, and industry leaders in Australia.

The Politics of Union Reform

The Commission of Inquiry into the CFMEU and Misconduct in the Construction Industry has significant implications for union reform in Australia. If Watson’s report can be shown to have relied on unverified sources or second-hand accounts, what does this say about the inquiry’s own approach to gathering evidence? Moreover, the exchange between Watson and O’Gorman highlighted a deeper issue: the relationship between unions, politicians, and industry leaders in Australia.

The CFMEU has long been accused of exerting undue influence over the construction industry, and Watson’s report seemed to confirm this. However, what about the role of other stakeholders? Are they equally culpable in perpetuating a culture of intimidation and violence?

A Culture of Intimidation

The CFMEU’s alleged culture of intimidation and violence is a symptom of a broader problem: the lack of accountability within unions. If union officials can act with impunity, what does this say about the effectiveness of current regulations? Moreover, the relationship between unions, politicians, and industry leaders in Australia is complex.

Are they equally culpable in perpetuating a culture of intimidation and violence, or do they play a more subtle role – enabling or even facilitating union misconduct?

The Inquiry’s Own Approach

The Commission of Inquiry into the CFMEU and Misconduct in the Construction Industry has yet to produce any concrete findings or recommendations for reform. However, as it continues, one thing is clear: the reputation of the CFMEU is on trial, but so too are the relationships between unions, politicians, and industry leaders in Australia.

The inquiry’s own approach to gathering evidence has been called into question by Watson’s exchange with O’Gorman. If Watson’s report relies on unverified sources or second-hand accounts, what does this say about the commission’s own standards of proof?

A Trial for the Ages

The Commission of Inquiry into the CFMEU and Misconduct in the Construction Industry is a trial for the ages – not just for the reputation of the CFMEU but also for the relationships between unions, politicians, and industry leaders in Australia.

As Watson himself acknowledged, this inquiry has significant implications for union reform in Australia. If it can demonstrate that union officials act with impunity, what does this say about the effectiveness of current regulations? And what does this mean for the future of the construction industry?

The commission’s findings will be watched closely by unions, politicians, and industry leaders alike – not just because they have a stake in the outcome but also because they know that the reputation of the CFMEU is on trial.