Question Time AU

Bill Debate · Second Reading

Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Senate · Wednesday 9 September 2026

Continued from Wednesday 19 August 2026.

Official Hansard for this day (APH) · Read this debate on OpenAustralia

At a glance

The Senate debated the Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) Bill 2026, which seeks to remove the five-year statutory limit on disqualifying union officers and clarify that disqualified persons cannot hold positions in other registered organisations. Liberal and One Nation senators argued the bill was necessary to prevent corrupt officials, particularly within the CFMEU, from returning to power after short bans, citing evidence of intimidation and criminal links. Labor senators opposed the bill, arguing it was a political distraction that ignored broader industry issues like wage theft and safety failures by employers, while claiming the current administration had already removed over 200 office holders. The debate concluded with the matter adjourned.

Outcome

The debate was adjourned with leave granted for Senator Brockman to continue remarks later.

Summary in reported speech - not a transcript. AI-generated, so check the official record before quoting.

How the debate unfolded

Continued the debate

Jane Hume (VIC) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Hume supported the bill, arguing that the existing five-year cap on disqualifying union officers was insufficient given the severity of misconduct within the CFMEU. Hume cited administrator Michael Crosby's statement that the current rules limited his ability to impose longer bans, even for serious offences. Hume detailed the history of John Setka, including his expulsion from the Labor Party and multiple arrests for threatening union administrators, to illustrate the need for indefinite disqualification powers. Hume argued the bill would allow the administrator to revisit previous decisions and prevent disqualified individuals from moving to other registered organisations.

Government response

Tony Sheldon (NSW) (Australian Labor Party) ALP

Sheldon opposed the bill, asserting that the government had already taken strong action by appointing an independent administrator who removed over 200 office holders, including 27 senior leaders. Sheldon argued the bill failed to address critical issues such as workplace deaths, wage theft, and unpaid superannuation in the construction industry. Sheldon highlighted cases of employer intimidation and exploitation, citing reports against companies like Future Form and TQM Group, to argue that accountability must extend to bosses, not just union officials. Sheldon characterised the bill as a political attempt to weaken unions rather than genuinely clean up the industry.

Opposition response

Michaelia Cash (WA) (Liberal Party) Liberal

Cash supported the bill, describing it as a straightforward measure to remove an arbitrary cap on disqualification periods. Cash accused the Labor Party of obstructing previous integrity reforms and dismantling watchdogs like the Australian Building and Construction Commission after coming to power. Cash argued that Labor had consistently prioritised union interests over accountability, citing their opposition to earlier legislation on registered organisations and worker benefits. Cash contended that the bill was necessary to allow the administrator to impose bans proportional to the seriousness of misconduct, including life bans for severe cases.