In the ever-evolving landscape of the Australian housing market, an intriguing narrative unfolds, focusing on the challenges and dynamics within the construction sector. As new houses continue to emerge across the outer suburbs of Melbourne, a deeper investigation into the operations of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) reveals a complex interplay between labor relations and housing availability.
On January 13, 2026, during a session of the Select Committee on Productivity in Australia, Michael Crosby, the CFMEU’s administrator, confronted inquiries regarding the union’s influence on the housing crisis. Despite being placed into administration by the Commonwealth government, Crosby asserted that the union’s actions did not significantly contribute to the ongoing shortfall of approximately 300,000 construction workers—a figure indicative of a booming industry. With major projects on the horizon, including the Tasmanian Stadium, the T2D roading initiative in South Australia, and the Queensland Olympics, the demand for skilled labor is poised to escalate.
Crosby emphasized that the CFMEU has traditionally concentrated on organizing within major infrastructure projects, such as hospitals and stadiums, rather than the housing sector. This tactical focus, he noted, has resulted in “terrible” productivity levels within these sectors. However, significant strides have been made under the leadership of his predecessor, Mark Irving, who successfully eliminated disruptive elements within the union. Crosby’s commitment to maintaining standards and accountability within the organization is evident in his candid approach to leadership, stating, “If I see bad behavior, the bad behavior is going to end pretty quickly.”
The testimony of Geoffrey Watson SC, who investigated corruption within various branches of the CFMEU, adds another layer to this narrative. Watson pointed out that although the union has limited involvement in home building, the high labor costs associated with major infrastructure projects inadvertently pressure housing developers to boost wages in an effort to retain skilled workers. This, in turn, contributes to rising home prices. Crosby contended that the enterprise bargaining agreements (EBAs) negotiated by the union are critical, providing competitive wages and favorable conditions that draw tradespeople away from residential construction. “These workers are in short supply, they’re highly skilled, and there’s not enough of them,” he explained, highlighting the power dynamics at play in labor negotiations.
Crosby expressed a sense of regret over the union’s lack of engagement in high-rise residential construction, noting alarming levels of unsafe work practices encountered by organizers on-site. “There’s a cost to safety,” he remarked, contrasting unionized sites, where fatalities are rare, with non-unionized environments, where such tragedies are common. His observations underscore a critical issue within the housing sector: rampant sham contracting, underpayment, and inadequate safety measures.
Recent studies have shown that unionized construction sites tend to exhibit lower accident rates and higher compliance with safety regulations. This correlation raises important questions about the broader implications of union involvement in the housing sector. By prioritizing safety and fair labor practices, unions like the CFMEU could potentially mitigate the risks associated with the construction of high-rise residential buildings.
In conclusion, the complexities of the Australian housing market extend far beyond mere supply and demand. The intersection of labor dynamics, safety standards, and economic pressures illustrates a multifaceted challenge that requires nuanced understanding and strategic intervention. As Australia navigates its construction boom, the role of unions in promoting not only fair labor practices but also safety and productivity will be pivotal in shaping the future of housing in the country.
Reviewed by: News Desk
Edited with AI assistance + Human research
