High Court Upholds CFMEU Administration Powers: What It Means for Unions, Governance and Reform

On 18 June 2025 the High Court of Australia handed down a significant decision in Ravbar & Anor v Commonwealth of Australia & Ors [2015] HCA 25, dismissing the CFMEU’s constitutional challenge against the federal government’s decision to place the CFMEU’s construction and general division into administration.

The ruling is pivotal in affirming the validity of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Administration) Act 2024 (Cth) (Act). This ruling further sets out to confirm the Federal Government’s power to intervene in the governance of registered organisations that are plagued with systemic misconduct.

Background

This litigation stemmed from the long-standing allegations of corruption, criminal infiltration, and governance failure within the CFMEU’s construction arm. The Government’s response to pressure of public opinion was to introduce urgent legislation in 2024 empowering the employment minister to appoint an administrator to oversee the CFMEU.

As a result, prominent barrister Mark Irving KC was appointed as an independent administrator. In his capacity, Mr Irving KC was tasked with implementing structural reforms and restoring lawful conduct and proper governance standards.

However, despite the above, the CFMEU led by former Queensland official Michael Ravbar, launched a constitutional challenge to the appointment on the grounds that alleged infringements on freedom of association and misuse of ministerial power.

The High Court’s Decision

The High Court was unanimous in its 18 June 2025 judgment which saw the rejection of all four grounds of appeal.  The primary takeaways of the judgment were:

• The Act did not breach implied constitutional freedoms;
• The administrative powers conferred were lawful, proportionate, and reasonably adapted to a legitimate purpose; and
• The ministerial decision in appointing an administrator was valid and within legislative scope.

The judgement delivered emphasised the Australian Government’s inherent authority and ability to intervene in the affairs of registered organisations in circumstances where the organisation has engaged in serious misconduct and improper compliance.

Legal and Industrial Implications

The ruling has meant:

• The full continuation of the administration with Mr Irving KC remaining in place with a wide-ranging array of powers to remove officials, oversee internal elections and implement structural reforms;
• An expanded scope of authority which will likely result in the administration addressing longstanding cultural issues, preventing future criminal influence and rebuilding public confidence in the union;
• A footstep for legislative precedent with the decision solidifying the constitutional footing for future legislative intervention in registered organisations in case of serious mismanagement and corruption

What This Means for the Future

While the High Court’s decision does provide legal certainty, it also importantly marks a pivotal turning point in organisational regulation in Australia which is expected to have a substantial impact in the future, for example, increased governance expectations for unions.

The changes that flow from this decision are expected to trend towards stronger regulatory oversight and overall accountability in industrial organisations.

There is hope that Courts will continue to be receptive to public interest and reform accordingly with strong government-led interventions.

Furthermore, the outcome of this case and the general notion of administrative principles being upheld will likely set a precedent for even the most significant statutory powers to be conferrable, provided they are clear, proportionate and serve a legitimate policy aim.

Concluding Remarks

The judgment delivered by the High Court of Australia highlights a complex intersection of constitutional law, industrial relations, and administrative intervention. As the construction division undergoes a restricting overhaul under the sustained oversight of the administration, the decision remains a key milestone in regulatory reform and general accountability towards the unions.

General for clients in the construction, development or industrial relations sections, this decision signals a firmer regulatory environment and rising expectations for governance, transparency, and lawful conduct.

How We Can Help

If your business is expected to be affected by industrial relations reforms, union activity, or regulatory intervention, reach out to our team at Rostron Carlyle Rojas Lawyers for a confidential discussion regarding CFMEU updates, your position, or book a consultation here.

The blog published by Rostron Carlyle Rojas is intended as general information only and is not legal advice on any subject matter. By viewing the blog posts, the reader understands there is no solicitor-client relationship between the reader and the blog published. The blog should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a legal practitioner, and readers are urged to consult RCR on any legal queries concerning a specific situation.