Proponents of active government involvement in industrial relations argue that ministers must maintain open lines of communication with all major stakeholders, including unions, to ensure the smooth delivery of critical infrastructure. In the context of large-scale projects, such as those involved in the 'Big Build,' the government has a responsibility to prevent work stoppages and ensure that projects remain on schedule and within budget. From this perspective, engaging with the CFMEU is not inherently corrupt but rather a pragmatic approach to managing complex industrial environments where the union holds significant influence over the workforce.
Supporters of this view emphasize that the primary goal of any government is to deliver public services and infrastructure efficiently. When faced with potential strikes or industrial disputes that could delay essential transport or health projects, ministers may feel compelled to facilitate resolutions. This is often seen as a necessary part of the governing process, where the focus is on achieving a practical outcome that benefits the community by avoiding costly delays. They argue that characterizing these efforts as 'unlawful' ignores the reality of the pressures faced by ministers who are ultimately accountable for the success of these projects.
Furthermore, those who defend this level of engagement point out that the construction industry is uniquely challenging, with a history of deep-seated industrial tensions. By acting as a mediator, the government can sometimes prevent the escalation of disputes that would otherwise have a far greater negative impact on the economy and the public. They argue that without such intervention, the risk of prolonged industrial action would be significantly higher, potentially leading to even greater costs for taxpayers. The focus, they maintain, should remain on the successful completion of infrastructure rather than on the procedural nuances of how those outcomes were negotiated.
Ultimately, this perspective suggests that while transparency is important, the government’s role as a project owner necessitates a proactive stance. They caution against conflating political negotiation with corruption, arguing that the latter requires clear evidence of personal gain or illegal activity, which they believe has not been established in these instances of ministerial assistance.