I rise to speak in support of the Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) Bill 2026. In 2024, the CFMEU was rightly placed into administration. As uncomfortable as that process was for the Labor Party, the level of corruption and crime that infiltrated the construction sector around Australia, particularly in my home state of Victoria, became impossible to ignore.

Under the current scheme that Labor contrived, the administrator can take disciplinary action. He can expel members, and he can disqualify officers, but he cannot do either for longer than a period of five years. That's no matter how bad an individual's behaviour is or how bad the offences that they committed are. A member expelled today can simply reapply to join the union in five years time. That's the limit, and it applies no matter what the offences are. This is a provision that, to me, seems entirely unjust and unjustifiable. In practice, this gives some of the most well-known and worst documented characters in the CFMEU a pathway back into the ranks of the union, and it opens up the moment that the five-year expiry kicks in. This is highly problematic and deserving of reform today.

You don't have to take my word for it that five years isn't enough; you can take the word of the administrator himself. On 30 July on the ABC 7.30 program, Michael Crosby AM was asked why he was suspending John Setka's membership for only five years, and his answer was that the rules limited him to a maximum of five years. In his words, 'That's as much as I can do.' When he was pressed on the need for reform, Mr Crosby didn't rule it out. That was the administrator that the parliament has appointed, on national television, describing the limits of his own powers. Now, he's not asking for a free hand. He's telling us that, when he judges that conduct warrants expulsion of more than five years, the law doesn't allow him to exercise that judgement. The government may disagree with me about a great many things in this debate, but it cannot disagree that its own administrator is working with one hand tied behind his back. It's a limit on his powers. Labor will try to argue that the administrator's powers are sufficient, that they got it right the first time and that nothing needs to change, but the need for change becomes irrefutable when the extent of bad behaviour that this administration is dealing with is laid bare and put on the record.

John Setka ran the Victorian branch of the CFMEU for 12 years. His record is not a matter of rumour. It's not a matter of partisan invention. It's a matter of public record. In 2019, Mr Setka pleaded guilty to harassing a woman by phone. In the same year, after reported comments disparaging the advocacy of Rosie Batty, his conduct became so indefensible that the Prime Minister Anthony Albanese himself moved to expel him from the Labor Party. The Prime Minister couldn't stomach him personally. The law in this country, however, still guarantees him a way back into the Prime Minister's own union movement.

Under his leadership, the Victorian branch of the CFMEU handed paid delegate and safety roles to members of outlaw bicycle gangs and figures from organised crime. When the Nine papers and 60 Minutes were about to put the evidence to him in July 2024, he wouldn't answer the questions. Instead, he resigned and expressed the hope that his departure would end the scrutiny of his union. Of course, it did not, because that scrutiny is so well deserved.

Let me put on the record what accountability looks like when it's applied to this union. The former administrator, Mark Irving KC, asked a very straightforward question. He asked for information about how members' money had been spent. This was the reply that he received, as set out in the Watson report. I warn the chamber that the language that I am about to use is confronting, and, for the sake of the Hansard transcript, I will temper it as much as I can. The response from John Setka was: 'Go eff yourself, Irving. You effing dogs have endangered my life with your leaks to the media, and I will come into the office whenever I want. I'm not an ALP stooge like you two s—' Sorry. There was a different word there, but I don't even think I can say the abbreviation. Mr Setka said:

… one more leak you dogs and I'll fix it myself …

This is what a request for basic financial transparency for members produced; not an answer but abuse in threats and intimidation.

It didn't stop there. In November 2025 John Setka was arrested and charged over emails that police allege he had sent to the union administrator following a notice to produce. In February this year Mr Setka was arrested yet again. He was charged over further messages to the administration, including one police say was sent on Christmas Day. He was charged with committing an indictable offence while on bail. On 14 August Mr Setka was arrested for a third time. He was charged over social media posts, this time featuring images of the administrator, Mr Irving, and the assistant administrator, Mr Matt McGowan. A court bailed Mr Setka on the condition that he stop posting intimidating or vulgar material about people that are overseeing the union—people that were sent in by the Labor Party to clean up the union.

There were three arrests and three sets of charges, every one of them arising out of allegations before the courts from correspondence aimed at the very people that this parliament put in place to clean up the CFMEU. This is the kind of character that we are dealing with. That is the environment that the administrator is working in. This parliament is now telling that administrator that the most he can do is expel somebody for a period of five years. Two of those years have already gone—two down, three to go.

This is just a glimpse into the record of Mr John Setka and the type of person he is. That is the man the administrator examined when he imposed the toughest sanction that was available to him, and that is the man to whom the current law guarantees a return date. He will be back amongst the union ranks in just another three years time. Five years, and the door has to be opened to him again and a welcome mat laid out, not because anyone reasonable thinks it should be but because of the way the system is set up now and the way the Labor Party have contrived this administration and because that's what the law says. That's what the statute says.

This is a bill that's not about just one man, though, and that is really important to emphasise. Mr Setka is the example, of course, that everyone knows. He's a household name, particularly in my home state of Victoria. He brings fear and intimidation into the hearts of so many normal, good people that work on construction sites. But he's not the only one.

Let me turn more generally to the suite of allegations that have been raised recently. The Queensland Commission of Inquiry into the CFMEU and misconduct in the construction industry has received even more confronting evidence about the CFMEU. This includes evidence that the union maintained a 'hit list'—I use inverted commas for that, but I do so wisely—of workplace inspectors that it sought to force out of the state regulator, Workplace Health and Safety Queensland. There is evidence of bullying and intimidation that was so severe that one executive—a public servant just doing their job—suffered a mental breakdown and attempted to take his own life. This is the kind of behaviour that we're dealing with. These are the characters that we're dealing with.

Nick McKenzie reported exclusively in the Nine papers about the conduct of the CFMEU and officials on sites of Victoria's Big Build—two words that have become synonymous with 'construction', 'rorts' and 'waste'. These include paid delegate and safety representative roles that have been handed to members of outlaw motorcycle gangs—simply handed to them—as well as instances of women being physically abused and intimidated while the CFMEU protected the men on government sites, and even Big Build operations converted into drug distribution hubs for these outlaw motorcycle gangs. It's out of control.

Let me be very clear: this behaviour is not at all in the past. It's happening now. Subcontractors have continued to pay underworld figures for Big Build access as recently as 2026. That's this year. It's still going on, but the administration has been going on for two years. More arrests occurred just days ago when police seized illicit drugs, steroids, weapons and cash from a 35-year-old CFMEU delegate allegedly importing drugs through the mail and trafficking them across Melbourne's construction sites. This is the cleaned up CFMEU.

Knowing this information, it is very concerning that the administrator's disciplinary powers remain subject to an arbitrary five-year limit. The bill before us today removes that five-year statutory limit, giving the administrator the powers he needs and the options he needs to impose a longer or even indefinite period where warranted. This should not have ever needed to happen, if we had got it right the first time. Individuals with behaviour so unacceptable should not be allowed to walk back into the union movement with open arms. The bill also includes an amendment to the act to clarify that a person is a 'removed person' if they are disqualified under the scheme. This avoids any doubt and it makes the policy very, very clear. I would assume that everyone in this chamber would agree that persons disqualified under this scheme should not be permitted to go on holding positions within registered organisations wherever they are, whatever registered organisations exist.

The bill also amends the determination itself to remove the words 'so long as a period is not greater than a period of five years'. The bill also includes a transition provision, allowing the administrator to amend a disqualification decision that was made before the commencement, where the administrator would have imposed a longer period had the five-year statutory limit not applied. This ensures that persons who have already been subject to the maximum available sanction are not advantaged merely because their disciplinary decision was made before the commencement of this bill's amendments. We can fix this today, and it is so important to do so. If the Labor Party are serious about stamping out union corruption on construction sites, if they are serious about cleaning up the CFMEU and if they are serious about getting rid of the worst behaviour in the union movement, which is part of their legacy and something that they are rightly proud of, then you've got to stamp out the worst of the worst. You've got to get rid of these characters, because they are intimidating, they are bullying, they are menacing, and they are stopping the very clean up that the Labor Party said that they wanted.

We can do this today. This bill is one step closer to combating corruption in our construction sector—corruption in our construction sector that has cost us so dearly, that has cost the taxpayer so dearly and that has cost my home state of Victoria its reputation. It is not controversial, and it should attract support from all sides of the chamber, because, if you are genuine about stamping out corruption, this is a no-brainer. If you are genuine about getting rid of the worst characters from the CFMEU, this is a no-brainer. If you are serious about wanting to make sure that your union movement is something that you can be proud of every day, this is a no-brainer. Get rid of these characters once and for all. Don't open the door for them to invite them back.

We are one step closer to cleaning up corruption in the construction sector today, and we should get the support of everybody around this chamber. If you cannot support it, I suggest you take a long, hard look at yourself. I commend this bill to the Senate.

I rise to speak on the Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) Bill 2026 and about the misrepresentation of the administrator, Michael Crosby, and the 7.30 report. I leave for the record—it's already on there—that that's been misrepresented just now. Let me say clearly from the beginning that there is no place for corruption, criminality or any form of violence in any workplace. That's why we took the strongest possible action by appointing an independent administrator to the CFMEU in 2024, and, in the two years since, the same CFMEU administration put in place by the Albanese government has done more to eliminate corruption than those opposite did in a decade. Over 200 individual office holders have been removed, of them, 27 senior leadership positions.

The old leadership of the union that existed in New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland, many of which were under the Liberals and Nationals, are all gone. Senator Hume stood in this chamber talking about the dangers of John Setka, but what she failed to mention was that it was actually the entire time the Liberals and Nationals were in government that John Setka remained at the helm of the CFMEU. For nearly a decade, those opposite failed to deal with any issues within the construction industry, and now they're doing the same thing again, putting forward a farcical bill.

This bill doesn't do anything to protect working conditions. It doesn't do anything to address the dangerous, deadly conditions in construction—conditions that resulted in 15.5 per cent of all workplace deaths between 2003 and 2024. That's 761 deaths, 761 families torn apart. It doesn't do anything to address wage theft that runs rampant in the industry. The Fair Work Ombudsman in May this year investigated employers of building construction apprentices and trainees and found 68 per cent were breaking workplace laws. That's more than two out of three employers. That investigation led to more than $750,000 being recovered in back payments in just 15 months.

In my home state of New South Wales, the CFMEU recovered $4.6 million in lost wages in the last 18 months alone and more than $3.8 million in unpaid super on top of that, bringing the total to over $8.4 million in lost pay. That's over $8.4 million in pay that working people had earned but did not receive until the union stepped in and fought to get it back. I thank the officials and the organisers who did the work to recover that money, because, without someone standing beside these workers and chasing down what they were owed, much of that money would have stayed in the pockets of dodgy construction companies.

Those shonky operators don't just rip off their employees; they're also ripping off the decent businesses doing the right thing. The companies paying proper wages, paying super and keeping safe workplaces are forced to compete against these bottom feeders who cut every corner they can to put in the cheapest bids and win contracts. Those are the kinds of thieves and shonks who are being protected, and you are giving an advantage to them with the way that you carry on—the kinds of shonks that unions are facing head on and taking on.

I know I mentioned superannuation earlier, and that's a touchy subject for those opposite at the moment, with the Liberals, the Nationals and One Nation all fighting over who gets the credit for going after working people's retirement savings first. But this is what the union is actually dealing with. Just last year, the ABC reported that Australian workers in the building construction industry were losing $4.7 billion in unpaid super every year, and construction is one of the industries identified as being at the highest risk of unpaid super. The problem in this industry doesn't begin and end with a handful of CFMEU officials. Accountability applies across the board, and it must include bosses.

In July this year, Dr Eugene Schofield-Georgeson, one of Australia's leading industrial relations and labour scholars and a senior lecturer at UTS, published a major study called Explaining corruption in the Australian construction union: a critical perspective. He writes:

Another routine part of life for workers and union officials in the construction industry involves physical threats, intimidation and violence by property developers and their criminal associates.

And of course those opposite won't listen. He goes on to say:

Construction workers themselves have reported that employers sometimes enforce discipline on job-sites by recruiting organised crime figures to threaten, intimidate and stand-over them.

But you'll never hear about that from the Liberals, the Nationals or One Nation. You'll rarely hear about dodgy employers and gangster bosses dragging the entire industry down with them. You'll never get mentions of employers exploiting their workforce in their speeches, media comments or any proposed bills.

Just last year, the administrator's interim report outlined shocking allegations against a major construction company, Future Form. There were allegations that workers were being denied proper wages and superannuation, pushed into sham contracting arrangements and exposed to serious safety risks. And there were allegations of mafia-style intimidation aimed at silencing a union official from digging into it. According to that report, in October 2024, two masked men came to the union official's home and spray painted profanity-filled graffiti across the property, including calling him a 'CFMEU dog' while he was away and his wife and young children slept inside. Then a few months later, after he uncovered the further suspected safety breaches involving Future Form at the Western Sydney airport site and forced a temporary halt to work, things got even more dangerous. His car and boat were doused in petrol and set alight while he and his family were inside. Imagine that—you, your wife, your kids all asleep inside and then you wake up to find your car and boat in flames. And, of course, those opposite are laughing and grinning about all that. Well, that's real people that are standing up for working people. Then in June 2025, workers contacted—

Senator McKenzie, on a point of order?

The senator reflected on behaviour that was not actually occurring in the chamber in his speech.

Yes. I think, while it wasn't directed at any individual, Senator Sheldon, it would assist the chamber if you did withdraw.

I withdraw. Then a few months later, after he uncovered further suspected safety breaches, I repeat: his car and boat were doused in petrol and set alight while he and his family were inside. Imagine that: you, your wife, your kids all asleep inside and then you wake up to find your car and boat in flames.

Then in June 2025, workers contacted him saying that the site was unsafe, so he issued notices to audit Future Form. The very next day, a relative of this union official was jumped in a car park by several men who claimed to represent Future Form. They told him they had followed him home and they knew where he worked. They knew where the union official's family was. They even knew that they were at the dentist at the time. The message they wanted to pass on was simple: stop investigating Future Form.

The allegations helped trigger an independent Sydney Metro investigation, which found suspected worker underpayments, inadequate insurance coverage and tax fraud. In May this year, the New South Wales government acted on those findings, with Future Form being removed from the Western Sydney airport project. But unfortunately, this was just one of many cases against Future Form.

I was recently told about a young construction worker who says he experienced first-hand how Future Form treated workers on his site. I won't name him here, but he's a young dad in his mid-20s with young kids who's been working in construction for years. He says he was desperate to work when he took a job on at the Sydney residential development being built by one of Australia's biggest property groups, Mirvac, where Future Form was operating. On this first morning when he turned up wearing his hi-vis shirt from his previous construction job, he was told to take it off and never wear it again. He was told 'You are with Future Form.' He was promised $40 an hour and told he would keep his weekends free to spend time with his kids, but things started to change soon after. His pay was held back to pressure him to work Saturdays and, for a period, he was being paid in cash without payslips. Then, after the union came onto the site, the workers were suddenly put on the books. His payslips named a company he had never heard of. He worked more than 50 hours in one week, but his payslip only recorded a fraction of that. When he questioned why, he was effectively told that, if he didn't like it, he could find another job. He was then threatened with losing his job when he needed time for a medical treatment. Eventually, he couldn't keep working because of the pain. He was sacked anyway. When he asked for a termination letter, suddenly this young man, who had been told 'You're with Future Form,' who was forced to wear Future Form's orange hi-vis every day on the job, was told, 'Oh, you're just a subbie.'

Future Form is, unfortunately, just one of the major many major companies exploiting workers. Just a few months ago, we saw another disturbing example involving TQM Group, a Sydney based construction group behind major residential projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars. According to a Sydney Morning Herald report from 9 June 2026, a construction worker speaking anonymously said Fijian migrant workers have been living for months inside unfinished TQM developments in the Sydney Inner West—mattresses on the floor, bedding in suitcases scattered through an unfinished building, clothes hanging up and even a washing machine. The worker said he had never seen anything like it on a construction site. These were poor migrant workers building apartments marked as 'luxury living' while having to live in dangerous and disgusting conditions themselves. What was TQM's response? Complete denial. Even the state safety regulator, SafeWork NSW, required a number of issues to be fixed through improvement notices—contrary to what TQM was saying. SafeWork NSW also investigated another site in southern Sydney. Again, they found the same issues, and, of course, TQM again denied everything.

This is the other side of the construction industry, which the Liberals, Nationals and One Nation refuse to talk about: decent construction companies, who are doing the right thing, losing work to shonks like the ones I've just mentioned—bullies and gangsters, who undercut them by ripping off workers and cutting corners—

yet those opposite continue to stand up for those shonks, even now in this chamber. They are the ones that the union tackles every single day. Whether it's young workers being exploited, migrants scared to speak up or people pressured to work in unsafe conditions, they need someone in their corner.

Now, I know there are many on the other side who do care about these issues, who want to see a safer construction industry. But, when the Liberals and Nationals were actually in government, the record shows otherwise. Under them, the Australian Building and Construction Commission was established, a watchdog that spent more time barking at workers for having safety posters than going after dodgy employers—those were the real issues they chased, or so they said—or spending half a million dollars on losing a High Court appeal over a CFMEU request for a women's bathroom on a worksite. They launched a case about union officials having a cup of tea on a worksite. In that case, in 2017, Justice Tony North said it was 'astounding' that Commissioner Hadgkiss had briefed silk and conducted days of hearings with dozens of participants, including the AFP, over 'such a miniscule, insignificant affair'.

The ABCC could spot a union sticker from five suburbs away but somehow missed the exploitation under its nose and the criminal activity that was going on. Even the first bloke that the opposition put in charge of the ABCC had to resign in disgrace—the person those opposite put in charge of supposedly cleaning up the construction sector was breaking the very laws he was supposed to be policing. This is why the government has put in place a whole series of important changes to cover the construction industry—changes to make sure that workplaces are safer.

Now, it wasn't a surprise that those opposite—it was no accident. Their priorities have always been to weaken unions, to make it harder for construction workers to have a voice, to speak up. This bill is just those opposite taking advantage of allegations that have already been dealt with by the appropriate authorities to score political points, something they've done time and time again. At the last election, one of their commitments was to deregister the union altogether. Even Master Builders Australia, who I don't often find myself quoting, made the point clearly in a media release this year:

Deregistering or administration without removing the individuals responsible for misconduct does not solve the problem.

That's why we put the CFMEU into independent administration. It's why we set up and stood up the joint agency working group, chaired by the AFP and including the Fair Work Commission, the Fair Work Ombudsman and other regulators, to tackle further corruption and criminal activity in the construction industry. Relevant federal agencies have over 120 active investigations and cases underway. It's why we set up a tripartite national construction industry forum with unions and employers to implement a blueprint for the future, including a joint construction industry charter, and it's why we're consulting on new Commonwealth construction standards to stamp out unlawful and criminal behaviour and deliver safe, secure and well-paid jobs.

Our focus is to stamp out corruption in the construction industry wherever it exists. Their focus over there has always been to stamp down on workers' voices. You don't clean up this industry by leaving workers powerless. You clean it up by driving out the crooks, strengthening the law, backing decent companies that play by the rules and making sure people on the tools still have a strong democratic voice. You'll never hear those opposite turn around and take on those shonky gangsters that are in those construction companies that are putting decent companies at risk.

I rise to support the Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) Bill 2026. This is a very straightforward bill and it should be completely uncontroversial. At present the CFMEU administrator can expel members and disqualify officers, but only for a maximum of five years. No matter how serious the misconduct, no matter how disgraceful the behaviour, no matter whether the administrator concludes that a person should never again be trusted with power inside a registered organisation, five years is the maximum. All this bill does is remove the arbitrary cap. It allows the administrator to impose a longer disqualification where the circumstances warrant it. It makes sure a disqualified person cannot simply move sideways into another position within a registered organisation. And it gives the administrator a limited opportunity to revisit the most serious existing disqualifications where the five-year cap prevented a stronger sanction. That is what the bill does.

This bill is a test for Labor—a very simple test. Is Labor finally prepared to put integrity ahead of the union machine that controls it? Sadly, the reality for the Australian people is that the corruption within the building industry did not need to get to this. We could have started cleaning up the culture of corruption and lawlessness almost a decade ago. The coalition wanted to. We saw the problem. We warned about the problem. We brought the legislation into the parliament, time and time again, to deal with the problem of lawlessness and corruption within the building industry.

What did the Labor Party do? Time and time again—it's there on the Hansard for everybody to see—they stood with the CFMEU and their union mates, time after time, vote after vote, bill after bill. When given a choice between stronger integrity laws and protecting union power from scrutiny, Labor repeatedly chose the union machine. While Labor obstructed reform, the culture we wanted to confront was allowed to fester. The intimidation continued. The lawlessness continued. The corruption continued. And when Labor finally returned to government it didn't strengthen the protections; it dismantled them.

So those opposite who now strut around saying it was Labor that cleaned up the CFMEU are rewriting history on an industrial scale. Labor did not lead the clean-up. Labor helped stop the clean-up. Here is the record. When we brought the 'restoring the Australian Building and Construction Commission' legislation to the Senate, Labor opposed it. When we brought the 'establishing the registered organisations commission' legislation, Labor opposed it. When we brought the legislation on ensuring integrity, including stronger disqualification powers for corrupt officials, Labor opposed it. When we brought legislation on proper use of workers benefits—let's not let corrupt union officials rip off the workers—Labor opposed it. Legislation on protecting emergency service volunteers: Labor opposed it.

That is Labor's record. It is written in the Hansardthe speeches are all there—time and time again opposing the coalition's efforts to clean up the corruption and lawlessness in the building and construction industry, not Labor's revisionist version, as they like to tell Australia, and not the talking points that were just out for convenience. Labor's actual record: almost a decade of opportunities to support stronger integrity, and time and time again—it is there on the Hansard record—Labor chose the CFMEU and the union movement over reform.

Then of course Anthony Albanese became Prime Minister and Labor went further. They abolished the Australian Building and Construction Commission. Why? Because the CFMEU and John Setka had made it clear: 'We demand of you and you shall give us what we want.' Why do the CFMEU and John Setka hate the ABCC? Because they took consistent legal action—it had to go to a court—in relation to their appalling behaviour: their violence, their intimidation, their thuggery. The court found for the ABCC, and the CFMEU, time and time again, had to pay millions and millions of dollars in fines because of the actions brought by the ABCC. So, when Anthony Albanese became Prime Minister, he paid his paymaster, alright. He abolished the tough cop on the beat.

Now Labor like to go around and say they abolished the ABCC because it didn't stop the thuggery. They say we should abolish the police force. Is that what they say? Crime still exists. Our construction sector needs the ABCC back as a tough cop on the beat. If Labor want to give them even greater powers because Labor say they were inadequate, we will stand with you. I'll bring the blasted legislation before the parliament and watch you squirm every single step of the way. You dismantled the two key institutions that the coalition was able to get up, with the support of the crossbench, that were actually making a difference.

Labor like to tell the Australian people now that they're making a difference—what breathtaking hypocrisy. You cannot spend years and years and years in opposition opposing the safeguards that the coalition government brought to this chamber. You can't abolish the watchdogs because the union asked you to when you get into government, wait until the corruption has now become impossible to ignore and then say, 'Can you please give us a big clap?' Well done, Labor. Well done. You've finally acted. We actually supported you in acting, if you recall. You never supported us once. You fought us every single step of the way. It was only when you went into damage control that you came to us on bended knee and asked for our support, and we gave it to you. Ten years ago, you could have shown the Australian people the decency of supporting us. Ten years ago, we could have started the cleanup of the building and construction industry. We could have started the cleanup of the corruption, of the billions and billions of dollars going to organised crime. But, God help you, no, you stood with the CFMEU, with the thugs, and you allowed it to continue, and here we are now. Even now the administrator is saying, 'My hands are tied.' These people need to be banned for more than five years, but the bill only allows us to do it for five years.

Well, we are here to help you, and we are here to help the administrator of the CFMEU. We will allow the administrator to impose the ban that he believes is appropriate. If the conduct warrants seven years, he can impose seven years; if 10, he can impose 10; if 20, he can impose 20. If you've got to ban them for life, ban them for life. Why should the law guarantee a comeback to someone the administrator of the CFMEU—the man who's been put in charge of the CFMEU—says should never, ever come back to a registered organisation in his life or her life. Labor needs to answer that. If Labor votes against the bill, Labor's not voting against the coalition; it is voting to continue to support the lawlessness and corruption in the industry, as it did time and time again when the coalition brought laws to the parliament to stop the corruption and the lawlessness.

This is not the first time the coalition has tried to strengthen disqualification powers. We tried years ago. Our ensuring integrity bill supported stronger powers to disqualify officials. Those were stronger powers where officials were not fit and proper persons, stronger powers to deal with the repeated and systemic lawlessness within registered organisations—not just the union movement, registered organisations, which means employer bodies as well. Labor opposed it. Let that sink in.

Today, Labor will stand here. We'll hear another speech, I'm sure, telling us how they take this seriously. Where was that concern, though, years and years ago when we were in office and we tried to strengthen disqualification laws to stop the corruption and the lawlessness? Labor voted against them. They didn't just vote against them; they screamed blue murder. Now we're back here. The situation is way worse. The thuggery is worse. The intimidation is worse. The ripping off of the workers is worse. Millions of dollars—they don't know where it's gone. It's their money. They can't find it. And we're here because the administrator says, 'My powers are not strong enough.' You couldn't script the hypocrisy.

Of course, Labor like to talk big on the workers and entitlements. Well, then, why did you not support the legislation for the proper use of workers benefits? You opposed it. All we wanted to do was shine a light on worker entitlement funds. It's the workers' money for goodness sake, and they're being ripped off by the unions. We wanted stronger financial management, stronger record keeping, stronger financial disclosure benefits, disclosure of loans, disclosure of grants, disclosure of donations.

The questions are not complicated. Where's the workers' money? Who controls it? Who gets the benefit? We've seen recent allegations that John Setka is still running one of the blasted funds. You've got to be kidding me! Workers actually deserve answers to those questions. Labor screamed blue murder when we were in government. It doesn't matter what you say now. You opposed stronger laws that would have ensured the workers of this country got the benefits of those funds—not corrupt union officials who have their grubby little paws all over the workers' money.

The Registered Organisations Commission, stronger financial accountability, stronger disclosure, stronger investigation, stronger enforcement, higher penalties for serious misconduct—again, Labor opposed its establishment. We established it, at the time, with the crossbench. Then, of course, the CFMEU said, 'When you get in, you better abolish it, or else there'll be hell to pay.' So what did they do? The first two acts of government abolished the ABCC and the Registered Organisations Commission. The tough cop on the beat, the ABCC, was a regulator dedicated specifically to an industry with a long record of unlawful conduct, coercion, intimidation, bullying and violence against women.

We saw accountability and tackling corruption and lawlessness within the industry as so important that we, at least, had the guts to take it to a double dissolution trigger. We stood up for the workers in Australia and said to the workers: 'If we go to an election, this is our policy. We will restore it.' The people of Australia voted for us, and we did—without the need for a joint sitting. We got those two bills through the Australian Senate—the restoration of the ABCC and the introduction of the Registered Organisations Commission—and Labor fought us every step of the way.

So, please, spare us the performance—every time you stand in this place and you suddenly say you're taking action. You had 10 long years to take action, and you didn't. It is there in black and white on the Hansard record. You opposed the ABCC, you opposed the Registered Organisations Commission, you opposed the ensuring integrity bill, you opposed the proper use of workers benefits funds, and you opposed protecting volunteer Victorian firefighters from the hands of the union.

The evidence is there. It wasn't suddenly discovered. The evidence has been there for a very long time. A royal commission laid bare the evidence for all Australians to see. That is why, whenever the coalition confronted union misconduct, Labor called it 'union busting'. Whenever we strengthened accountability, Labor attacked us. Whenever we strengthened the regulators, Labor attacked the regulators. Whenever we tried to clean up the system, Labor stopped us every single step of the way.

Sadly, for the Australian people, we are now where we are. Who pays the price for all of this? Those on the other side say they stand with the workers. The bad news is that it's the workers of Australia who have paid a very, very high price for you continuing to pay your paymaster, the CFMEU, who have donated millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars to the Australian Labor Party. You opposed restoring the ABCC. You opposed establishing the Registered Organisations Commission. You opposed ensuring integrity, including stronger disqualification powers. You opposed the proper use of workers benefits. You opposed emergency services volunteer protections. That is your record.

I rise in support of the Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) Bill 2026. This bill is not complicated. It does one necessary thing: it stops an arbitrary five-year clock from protecting people who have treated a registered organisation as a personal fiefdom.

The Construction and General Division of the CFMEU was placed into administration on 24 August because the evidence of what that division had become was no longer deniable. Reporting administrator investigations and later inquiry material described a culture of intimidation, standover tactics, alleged links to people who should never have been anywhere near a construction site and a union that too often acted as if the law applied to everyone except its own officials.

This isn't just me pontificating on a headline. I was there. I saw it in person. I've been at the receiving end of some of their poor conduct. My business dealt with the CFMEU, and I saw them intimidate and bully. Then, I watched Labor opened the doors for them to come to my worksites and do as they please. Labor is complicit in all of this. Labor is the political wing of the CFMEU, and, had the corruption not been exposed, the CFMEU would be running rampant today under Labor's watch with their blessing. Honest members, the people who actually swing hammers and pour concrete, were not running that show. A small number of officials were. The rest of the industry paid the price in fear, inflated costs and projects that ran like a protection racket.

This is why the administration was necessary. It's also why the five-year cap on expulsion and disqualification of those involved is an insult to everyone who has had to live with the consequences. The current administrator, Michael Crosby, said the quiet part out loud on national television. When asked why suspensions were limited to five years, he answered that the rules only allowed him five years. That was as much as he could do. When he was asked whether the rules should change, he said maybe. This parliament should not leave that as a maybe. If the conduct is serious enough that five years look inadequate, the statute should not force the administrator to pretend otherwise. To say that there is no conduct that would require a lifelong ban is ridiculous.

Unions exist to represent workers. I don't stand against union workers' ability to collectively bargain. I am for workers. Ask all the people I once employed if they were treated well. What I do stand against is a construction union that becomes a vehicle for thuggery, that treats contractors as ATM machines and that treats its members and the taxpayer with utter disdain. When that happens, the people who suffer first are the members who wanted a clean union and the small businesses that cannot afford to fight a machine. Taxpayers suffer too, because public infrastructure does not get cheaper when intimidation and nepotism are built into the price.

A five-year ban is not a serious answer to that problem. Five years is a sabbatical. Five years is enough time for the networks to wait, for memory to fade and for the same people to walk back in as if nothing happened. I support removing that fiction. The administrator should be able to impose a longer period or an indefinite one where that is proportional to the misconduct. That is not vengeance; it is justice.

The second change in this bill is also important. It makes clear that a person disqualified under the scheme is a removed person. They should not be able to lose one title and pick up another in a different registered organisation. Australians have seen this movie before. The official moves sideways, and the letterhead changes, but the same habits continue. Closing that gap is common sense. Opponents will say this is an attack on the union movement. It's not. It's an attack on the idea that a union official is above the ordinary rules of accountability. A clean union does not need a five-year maximum written into the administration scheme. The people who need the cap are the people bringing the union movement into disrepute.

There is a reason this debate keeps coming back to the construction industry. That industry is large, mobile, cash heavy and politically connected. When a union in that sector goes rotten, the damage is not theoretical. It shows up on sites, in subcontracting chains, in safety culture and in the cost of public works. Administration was the admission that self-correction had failed. This bill is the admission that the tools given to the administrator were still too small for the scale of the corruption. Disqualification for 'any period' simply matches the seriousness of the problem the parliament already recognised when it put the division into administration.

If Labor and the crossbench are serious about cleaning up the CFMEU construction division, they will not defend a five-year sunset clause for the worst cases. The members who wanted a lawful union deserve that much as do the contractors who wanted to finish a job without looking over their shoulder and the public that are still paying for the mess. This bill is common sense, and if Labor want to show that they care about their base they should vote for this measure to strengthen a clean union movement. Or is it Labor's new modus operandi to forget the working class and cosy up to the inner-city elites?

I rise in support of this very important bill, the Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) Bill 2026, put forward by Senator Hume. Those opposite continue to claim that any move to clean up corrupt and criminal union behaviour is union bashing while completely ignoring the allegations made against the CFMEU and the person at the centre of Senator Hume's bill, John Setka.

Yesterday in question time we had a flippant offhand comment from Minister Walsh, who said that we couldn't handle the truth on this side of the chamber. I responded that we actually can. We've been asking for the truth but we are yet to hear it. We are yet to hear why those opposite continue to run a protection racket for the corrupt and criminal conduct of the CFMEU.

Five times I have brought to this chamber a proposal for a Senate inquiry to investigate just that, and five times those opposite—shamefully—have rejected that proposal. I was told that one of the reasons initially was that my inquiry was to examine corrupt and criminal conduct in the CFMEU and that I was blithely ignoring the fact that there were corrupt organisations within the construction sector. So I changed the terms of my inquiry to make it about corruption in construction across the board.

I don't care whether you're a union official. I don't care whether you run a construction company. I don't care whether you're a contractor. I don't care who you are. If you are running a corrupt business, if you are doing something that is illegal, if you are using taxpayer funds to line your own pockets then I want you out of there. And I can't understand why those opposite would want anything different, particularly when it comes to union worker funds lining those same pockets of those corrupt and criminal actors. Why are you okay for that to happen? Why are you okay for that to continue?

John Setka should never again be permitted to hold membership of the CFMEU, not in five years, not in eight years, not in 10 years—never, never again. He was not some incidental figure at the edge of what went wrong; he was one of the main characters, if not the main character, at the epicentre of what has been going on here. Under the Setka regime, a union that should have existed to protect working people has become synonymous with intimidation, criminal infiltration, corruption and the theft of taxpayer funds—the theft of funds that hardworking Australians pay to government in taxes.

And we cannot pretend the problem disappears simply because corrupt or discredited officials are removed from one union only to resurface under another union banner. We are already seeing the former CFMEU officials find new homes elsewhere in the union movement, including within the ETU. That is why this clean-up cannot simply be a game of a temporary sin-bin or musical chairs. If we are serious, genuinely serious, about breaking the networks that allowed this culture to flourish then we must stop its architects and its enforcers from simply changing the logo on their shirt or the place where they're working and carrying on as before. John Setka should be banned from the CFMEU for life, and anyone found to have participated in serious corruption or criminal conduct should have no pathway back to power through another registered organisation. Why do we not all agree to that? What is it in there that is so controversial?

But these aren't just my concerns. It is not just those on this side of the chamber making these statements. Concerns have been raised by the Fair Work Commission's general manager, Murray Furlong, about the infiltration of organised crime networks on Victoria's Metro Tunnel, North East Link and Suburban Rail Loop—taxpayer funded projects. It was reported by the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald that the former CFMEU assistant secretary in Victoria, Derek Christopher, received an estimated $200,000 in free labour and supply from major building companies. We could investigate that in a certain inquiry, but this chamber won't allow it. Those opposite—the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens—will not allow it.

Again, the Age and the SMH reported that business consultant Harry Korras claimed he could funnel large cash payments and regular kickbacks to his friends in the CFMEU in return for work on major construction sites. So to get a job on a CFMEU-controlled site, you just hand over a bit of cash and you're all sorted. It's not about the best value for money for the Australian taxpayer but about who's changing funds with whom. Mick Gatto was allegedly collecting retainers from builders to help prevent CFMEU shutdowns and disputes. So either you hand over some cash to these guys or they're going to find a problem on your site, shut you down, make sure you can't operate, force you to lose money on your site, bring you to your knees—unless you hand the cash over.

I'd like to see a stop to that. But I'd also like to understand why those opposite are happy for it to continue. I'd like to understand why the Australian Labor Party and the Australian Greens are happy for it to continue on Australian construction sites. Former organiser John Perkovic received at least $1 million in benefits through property transactions and benefits from construction businesses, including building work, vehicles and other payments. Where did that $1 million come from? It came from the Australian taxpayer and from CFMEU members, because the CFMEU doesn't have its own money; it gets it from its members.

In the Watson report there are a series of allegations in relation to John Setka, and I'm going to share them with you so you can again have a think about what we are allowing to continue, what those opposite are allowing to continue. The Watson report alleges that John Setka was personally corrupt, that he transformed the CFMEU into a criminal organisation with systemic extortion and violence, including violence against women, as well as EBA manipulation and ghost shifts. Have a think about that. This is who those on the other side of the chamber are protecting.

Watson also alleged that Setka had a close relationship with underworld figure Mick Gatto, that he concealed many of his property development interests and that an EBA pay-to-play game evolved under Setka. So either you enter into an EBA ticked off by the CFMEU or you can't work on those sites; your business cannot operate. Yet we stand here and pretend there's nothing wrong. You want to know why Australians are angry? It's because of things like this, where everyone is happy to sit silently and pretend that this isn't happening. I've not had one person look up from the other side of the chamber and even look at me as I speak, because nobody wants to know about this.

I am sick and tired of being unable to help the people ringing my office and sending me emails about what they are going through—the women who are subjected to violence and sexual harassment. These are people who are afraid for their families, and there are those who have spoken up and can no longer get work because they've been shut out, and they are losing their homes. These are real people who are impacted by this corrupt and criminal conduct. And some of us sit here and pretend it's not happening. Well, we don't; we're fighting. Senator Hume is fighting, I'm fighting, those in the coalition are fighting and some of the crossbench are fighting for Australians who deserve much better than that.

So why do we want to ban Setka and others like him for longer periods of time? In my view, the bans should be for life. But we should also ban them from other unions for life. I'll use the example of the ETU. The ETU is not some unrelated white-collar organisation on the other side of the economy; it represents electrical workers operating through many of the same major construction projects. We want to stop the same playbook that has rankled the CFMEU—Geoffrey Watson has said it was transformed from a union for its workers into a criminal organisation—from being deployed into other unions, like the ETU, as it should be.

CFMEU and ETU officials have spent years operating alongside one another within the Victorian construction movement, and there is nothing inherently improper about their working together. There's nothing wrong with that. But it means the institutional relationships, workplaces and membership networks necessary to rebuild and prevent industrial influence by bad actors already exist. You can just take them out of one and plug and play into the other.

The Victorian ETU publicly defended Setka during the 2019 controversy and called on Anthony Albanese to abandon his effort to remove him from the Labor Party. Have a think about that. That's strong influence. In 2021, the ETU again publicly expressed support for Setka and the Victorian CFMEU following the attack on the CFMEU officers. That just gives us a little bit more to think about.

During my campaign—over what is the best part of a year now—for a Senate inquiry into the corrupt and criminal conduct of the CFMEU and corruption in construction, you might not be surprised to hear that I've also received a number of threats, personally. I won't even go into the disgusting messages that I've received. Some of the comments describe me as antiworker. No, I'm not, actually; I've been a worker my whole life. I've worked since I was 18 years old. I'm anticorruption; that's what I am. I'm not antiworker. I'm anti organised crime infiltrating our worksites, and I'm anti organised crime making our housing crisis even worse. I'm anti the fear of our young people that they can never own their own home and wondering why.

A Fair Work commissioner told me to my face in estimates that between 15 and 30 per cent is the increased cost of construction, because of this type of conduct. I'm often told, 'You don't know what you're talking about.' 'This dumb'—and then an expletive-laden descriptor—'doesn't even know that the CFMEU doesn't build houses.' I know CFMEU doesn't build houses; I know that they build residential units. I also know that the 'pay to play' EBAs bring up the costs on construction sites that flow on through the broader economy and make it more expensive to build houses. These are all things that are true, and these are all things that the people in this room could put a stop to or help put a stop to. I would like to know why we are not.

Finally, I am anti taxpayer funds lining the pockets of criminals. I have almost 57,000 people who have signed my petition to support a Senate inquiry. I just need the people on the other side of the chamber to listen to them. (Time expired)

I'm going to start where Senator Kovacic finished. Fifty-seven thousand people, Senator Kovacic—that's an impressive number of people who are concerned. In one sense, it should be 25 million signatures because that's who should be concerned about—

Give me time.

I will give you time, Senator Kovacic. That's the number of people who should be concerned about the impact of corruption on our construction industry. As Senator Kovacic so rightly said—though those opposite don't want to admit to it—those on this side of the chamber have no truck with illegality or corruption, no matter where it sits in the construction industry. If it sits with companies, they should be prosecuted and thrown out of the industry. If it sits with unions, they should be prosecuted and thrown out of the industry. If it sits with ministers in government, then they should be prosecuted and thrown out of parliament.

The fact is corruption is a cancer on our society and our economy. We have seen the evidence of the impact of the CFMEU on state budgets particularly, where we see a 30 per cent price premium for CFMEU involved contracts—government contracts. That is an extra 30 per cent that the Australian taxpayer is having to find. Now, I can tell you there are a lot of small businesses out there who would love to be able to put their margins up by 30 per cent—they would absolutely love to. It might mean they could actually take some pay home. But they can't. But, when the CFMEU is involved, suddenly 30 per cent more comes straight out of taxpayers funds into the pockets of corrupt union officials.

This is not the way this country should operate. This is not the way. Anyone who wants to defend the union movement, anyone who wants unions to be a part of our civil society should be more outraged about this than perhaps I am. I think there is an inherent problem with the way a lot of unions operate, not just the CFMEU. It's all about being a closed shop, it's about control and it's about coercion. The CFMEU has clearly taken that to a different level and clearly a level where corruption and organised crime has infected an entire industry. It particularly seems so in Victoria, though what's coming out of the inquiry in Queensland is, to be honest, just as shocking. So you have to wonder whether it's not everywhere—

Senator Brockman, your time has expired. My apologies; I didn't give you forewarning.

I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.