Recent news reports that disclosed that Darren and Michael Greenfield have pleaded guilty to taking $30,000 in bribes should anger every member of the CFMEU. If true — and it is increasingly difficult to see the Greenfields as innocent — the father and son duo risked it all for an embarrassingly small amount of money.

They risked not only their reputations, and personal circumstances, but were also prepared to put the survival of their union in jeopardy. By taking money and smoothing the path for bosses they weren’t building a strong, militant union. They were building a house of cards, which is now at risk of collapsing.

No matter what any one official did, putting the union under administration was a disgusting overreach by the Albanese Government, assisted by the ACTU and the Liberal Party. Administration has not been a neutral process — it has been deeply politicised by the appointment of key allies of the ACTU and ALP by Mark Irving.

It is hard to see administration as anything less than a political hit job designed to render the CFMEU a compliant but less effective union: in Irving’s own words “militancy in accordance with the FW Act.” Consolidating the decision-making powers of a union into the hands of a single unelected man with no previous knowledge of the construction sector on a $600k salary is a corruption of the core principles of trade unionism. But it must be acknowledged that taking bribes from bosses breaks those principles, too.

CFMEU members must feel disappointed, angry and frustrated. It is a terrible thing to be betrayed by someone you trusted implicitly and held in high esteem. And after decades of the union being targeted by governments and agencies, of course unionists are going to believe it when they are told it’s a stitch up, because there had already been so many stitch ups.

But if being a CFMEU member means more than just wearing the merch and enjoying the RDOs, corruption must be called out.

Taking a single dollar from a boss automatically makes an official unfit to hold office. Not just because of the law, but because it shows that the official is willing to prioritise himself over their members. In the simplest of terms, it is a dog act. People who behave like this have no place in the union movement.

Members have high expectations of their elected officials. And perhaps it is worth examining more broadly what is and isn’t acceptable behaviour. Is it okay to cultivate cosy relationships with employers, even the “good ones”? Or should union officials resist being drawn into situations where they may be tempted to maintain industrial peace at some small cost to workers? What wages, conditions, allowances and perks are appropriate for a union official? Are the election processes and decision-making bodies of our unions actually democratic, or are they too easily “managed” by those already in power?

Administration has been a deeply upsetting process for many CFMEU members, and it is understandable to want to just wind back the clock and go back in time. It is no wonder that many members want “their” officials returned. The ones they endorsed, who they knew, who (mostly) had laboured in the same jobs as the rank and file, and who would at least turn up to branch meetings to face questions or to Branch Council or Committee of Management meetings to keep the wheels of the union turning.

But the serious allegations to which Darren Greenfield and Michael Greenfield have pleaded guilty makes the blanket reinstatement of officials untenable. No unionist should want an official returned on the basis of “it’s better the devil you know.”

The people given the great responsibility of representing members must be respected and trusted by members. No union representative should fear a contested election. A contested election is a sign of a healthy democracy, and not necessarily a rebuke of the incumbent. More rank-and-file workers wanting to step up and be active in the running of their union should be seen as a positive byproduct of a strong, democratic union made up of engaged members. Any former official not willing to face an election should be viewed with some suspicion. A real leader will welcome the opportunity to demonstrate the support they enjoy amongst his comrades.

As the one-year anniversary of administration approaches, this is the perfect moment for the rank-and-file members of the CFMEU to assess the way forward. The removed persons list should be torn up immediately, followed by fresh elections through the whole system — from delegates and HSRs right up to branch and national secretaries.

Every crisis brings with it opportunity. And the opportunity for the rank-and-file of the CFMEU at this juncture is to once and for all condemn corruption. This is bigger than two blokes in NSW and $30,000. It’s about ensuring the way forward for the CFMEU involves more participation, more democracy and more transparency.