- No products in the cart.
By Denita Wawn, CEO Master Builders Australia and published in the Australian on 16 April 2026
April marks 40 years since governments took the extraordinary step of deregistering the Builders Labourers Federation after ongoing malpractice on building sites. However, the intervention failed and the lessons are still relevant today with the criminal behaviour of the CFMEU.
BLF national secretary Norm Gallagher responded at the time: “We have been deregistered before. We survived and during that time our membership increased.
“We will look after ourselves, just wait and see.”
So, what do we need governments to do this time, before moving the CFMEU out of administration, to ensure history doesn’t repeat?
First, bad actors must be expelled from both organisations and the system. Deregistering or administration without removing the individuals responsible for misconduct does not solve the problem. That is why a robust fitand-proper-person test is essential, a standard already applied in finance, corporate governance and other regulated sectors.
The BLF deregistration failed to clean up the industry because malicious elements simply reemerged in other roles, be that unions or contractors. We’re seeing this repeat today with former CFMEU officials being moved to unions like the ETU, contrary to the intent of the Fair Work Act.
Similarly, removing the organisation without fixing the system also failed.
Second, long-term cultural change is required, not just a quick technical fix.
Multiple inquiries into the construction industry reach the same conclusion: the problem is not just technical breaches of industrial law, but a culture in which breaking the law is normalised.
The same types of unlawful conduct identified during the BLF era were again uncovered in subsequent royal commissions. Officials who breach industrial laws and court orders rarely faced the consequences of their actions, reinforcing a culture where lawbreaking is tolerated or even encouraged.
To get anywhere close to resetting culture, the current administration must continue for the full five years, which is 2029, to change leadership, expectations and behaviours across the industry, not just the legal structure.
Third, cartels necessitate competition law. Where co-ordinated behaviour between unions and contractors restricts who can work on a site and at what price, the issue is not simply industrial relations, it is competition law.
Whether it be the BLF’s “no ticket, no start” closed shop, or what the Heydon royal commission identified as pressure to adopt industry-wide “pattern agreements”, the effect was to standardise labour costs and restrict who could compete for work, behaviour that closely resembles a cartel.
Competition law exists to break cartels in every other sector of the economy. The construction industry should be no exception. Our competition laws need to be strengthened.
Finally, criminals thrive in fragmented enforcement.
The construction industry operates nationally, but enforcement remains fragmented across multiple regulators and jurisdictions – industrial, police, workplace safety and competition – leading to slow and inconsistent enforcement.
Initiating a royal commission is often a signal that policy failure is complicated and cross-portfolio.
If governments are serious about stamping out corruption and criminality on building sites, enforcement must be centralised, well-resourced and empowered to act across jurisdictions.
History repeats itself when we ignore its lessons.
Forty years after the BLF deregistration, the lessons are clear. Real reform means removing bad actors, changing culture, protecting competition and enforcing the law consistently.