In June 1988, the Reagan administration launched the most important US labour case^[1] of the past half-century.

The government alleged the Italian-American mafia – La Cosa Nostra^[2] – had effectively taken over the nation’s largest and most influential private sector union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters^[3] (IBT).

A civil suit began under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act^[4] (RICO) in a bid to prosecute officials and wrest control of the union from the country’s most powerful criminal syndicate.

Fast forward to Australia in March 2025. Opposition Leader Peter Dutton is floating RICO-style organised crime powers against the militant construction union, the CFMEU.

‘Modern day mafia’

The proposal follows new allegations of corruption and misconduct, including violence against women^[5], and union-linked crime infiltration of Victorian government projects. The revelations suggest previous political and police efforts to clean up the CFMEU have failed.

Dutton is drawing a direct parallel between the modern-day CFMEU and the mafia- dominated^[6] Teamsters of the 1980s.

This is the biggest corruption scandal in Australian history. The CFMEU is a modern-day mafia operation. The culture of criminality and corruption is so entrenched, and it will never change, especially under the weak and incompetent Albanese Labor government.

Dutton says if he is elected prime minister at the coming election, he will introduce national racketeering laws^[7] to tackle the alleged union corruption. Notably, he makes specific reference^[8] to the US “anti-mafia laws”.

US ‘takedown’ laws

Is Dutton on the right track? Could anti-racketeering laws work in Australia?

They might, but it is critical we clarify some of the confusion around them, starting with the “mafia” reference.

Although it is correct to say the RICO Act was passed in 1970 with a specific target^[9] in mind, the families of the Italian-American La Cosa Nostra, the act itself does not mention the mafia.

In practice, RICO adds the concept of “criminal enterprise” to a prosecution. It requires proof of a “pattern” of racketeering activity and its relationship to an enterprise, in addition to proving the individual crimes alleged. This made RICO particularly apt to tackle the involvement of mafia-type organised crime in labour racketeering^[11].

Crucially, RICO can be applied both to organised crime groups (associations-in-fact) and other organisations, including lawful ones (associations-by-law). This made it possible to stretch the applicability^[12] of RICO well beyond its intended use, with mixed results.

Italy passed similar anti-mafia laws^[13] in 1982. The Italian legislation is specific about the behaviours of mafia-type associations including intimidation and corruption.

CFMEU in the dock

Anti-mafia legislation could work in Australia, but not if it’s just a direct transfer of the US RICO laws. Dutton needs to shift his focus^[14] and define similar, but Australia-specific, laws.

Again, Italian and US legislation focus on criminal behaviour by enterprise.

By contrast, the existing proscribed association laws^[15] in Australia focus on identity of organised criminals, including “bikie” gangs, or on individual participation in organised crime activities, such as drug trafficking.

The different focus takes us back to the CFMEU. Here, the problem is not just the union. All the alleged racketeering^[16] in recent years also involved certain building companies, as well as various gangsters and bikies. Union bosses seemed to act like gangsters^[17] and the actual gangsters morphed into industrial relations “consultants” employed by major companies.

When well-known gangland figures^[18], such as Mick Gatto^[19] provide mediation and protection services to an industry through intimidation^[20], and the industry normalises kickbacks^[21], then we are in a racketeering and mafia scenario.

Australian racketeering laws

As has already been noted^[22], there are practical problems passing a new racketeering law.

Both the Italian and US regimes required a complete overhaul of criminal procedures and allocation of resources.