Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) Bill 2026

Senator KOVACIC (New South Wales) (10:05): 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)