Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) Bill 2026

Senator CASH (Western Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (09:44): 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 Hansard—the 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.