This bill did not become law and is no longer proceeding.
Work & employment
Union and employer group officials could be automatically barred from leadership jobs if they are convicted of a serious offence in Australia or overseas that carries at least five years in prison.
Criminal and corrupt conduct by some union and employer-group officials exposed gaps that let people with serious offences or workplace-law breaches stay in leadership and let organisations keep operating despite unlawful activity. This bill expands court powers to disqualifyA legal ban on holding a leadership role in a registered organisation. On this page, it can also stop someone from standing for office or acting behind the scenes. those officials, punish them if they keep acting, and cancel or restrict organisations involved in corrupt or unlawful conduct.
Existing registered organisationsA union or employer association that is formally registered under the federal workplace law, which gives it legal rights and obligations. law already set rules for unions and employer associations, but supporters of this bill argued it still left too much room for officials with serious criminal or workplace-law findings to stay in leadership and for organisations to keep operating after repeated unlawful conduct. After a similar Coalition measure from 2017 had failed, the bill was reintroduced in 2024 amid fresh parliamentary focus on alleged CFMEUThe Construction, Forestry, and Maritime Employees Union. It is mentioned as a key example in the debate about alleged misconduct in the construction sector. intimidation, bullying, harassment and corruption, but it never passed and lapsed when Parliament ended in July 2025.
The main criticism was that the bill could be used to weaken unions by treating ordinary or justified union activity as criminal or minor breaches as grounds for disqualification or even deregistrationA court order that strips a union or employer association of its registered status, which is a much stronger step than removing individual officials.. That case was raised by Labor senators opposing the bill, who argued it went beyond targeting serious wrongdoing and amounted to a broader attack on workers' representation, pay, conditions and safety.
Senator Michaelia Cash introduced this bill. Speeches supporting it came from Liberal Party, LNP.
Did it become law?
No
The bill did not complete passage through Parliament.
Final passage
No final passage
The bill has not completed passage and is no longer proceeding.
Time before failure
334 days
From introduction to the final recorded step before the bill stopped proceeding
Meaning
Union and employer group officials could be automatically barred from leadership jobs if they are convicted of a serious offence in Australia or overseas that carries at least five years in prison.
The Federal CourtThe court that would decide whether someone should be disqualified or whether an organisation should lose its registration under this bill. could disqualifyA legal ban on holding a leadership role in a registered organisation. On this page, it can also stop someone from standing for office or acting behind the scenes. a person from leading a registered union or employer association for a period it decides if workplace, criminal, corporate or other misconduct grounds are proved and disqualification would not be unjust.
People disqualified from office could face fines or up to two years in jail if they still run for office, stay in office, or keep pulling the strings behind the scenes.
The Federal CourtThe court that would decide whether someone should be disqualified or whether an organisation should lose its registration under this bill. could cancel the registration of a union or employer association if its officials or members are repeatedly involved in corrupt conduct, serious crimes, court-order breaches or unlawful industrial action.
Instead of shutting down a whole union or employer association, the Federal CourtThe court that would decide whether someone should be disqualified or whether an organisation should lose its registration under this bill. could target one branch by disqualifying officials, excluding members, or suspending entry rights, funding use, or other powers.
The insertion of the new paragraph 212(aa) expands the definition of prescribed offence to include an offence under a law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory, or another country, punishable upon conviction by imprisonment for life or a period of five years or more. Section 215 provides that a person convicted, per section 213, of one of the prescribed offences set out in section 212 is disqualified from holding office (subject to the person making an application for leave to hold office or a reduced period of exclusion under sections 216 or 217).Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024 (No. 2) explanatory memorandum
New subsection 222(2) provides that the Federal Court can make an order disqualifying the person from holding office for any period the Court considers appropriate if the Court is satisfied that a ground for disqualification set out in the application applies to the person and the Court does not consider it would be unjust to disqualify the person. In determining whether disqualifying a person from office would be unjust, the Court is to have regard to:Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024 (No. 2) explanatory memorandum
The maximum penalty for each of these offences is 100 penalty units ($21,000), two years imprisonment, or both. This ratio represents a departure from that set out in subsection 4B(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) but reflects the Final Report recommendation as to the appropriate penalty. Subsection 226(4) provides that for each of the offences in new section 226, where a person is disqualified as a result of an order made by the Court under either new section 28N or new section 222, strict liability will apply to that circumstance concerning whether or not the person was disqualified from holding office (the physical element).Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024 (No. 2) explanatory memorandum
The Bill expands the grounds for the cancellation of a registered organisation’s registration by the Federal Court. The new grounds include:Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024 (No. 2) explanatory memorandum
The Court may also make alternative orders that target a particular part of an organisation, where a ground for cancellation is established because of the behaviour of officers or members in a particular part of an organisation, for example, a branch or division. Applications for alternative orders may be made to the Court directly without the need for there to be a concurrent application for the cancellation of an organisation’s registration.Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Amendment (Removing Criminals from Worksites) Bill 2024 (No. 2) explanatory memorandum
Context
Existing registered organisationsA union or employer association that is formally registered under the federal workplace law, which gives it legal rights and obligations. law already set rules for unions and employer associations, but supporters of this bill argued it still left too much room for officials with serious criminal or workplace-law findings to stay in leadership and for organisations to keep operating after repeated unlawful conduct. After a similar Coalition measure from 2017 had failed, the bill was reintroduced in 2024 amid fresh parliamentary focus on alleged CFMEUThe Construction, Forestry, and Maritime Employees Union. It is mentioned as a key example in the debate about alleged misconduct in the construction sector. intimidation, bullying, harassment and corruption, but it never passed and lapsed when Parliament ended in July 2025.
Coalition first brings the measure to Parliament
A later 2024 second reading speech said the Coalition had first introduced this kind of bill in 2017, establishing an earlier failed attempt to expand powers over registered organisationsA union or employer association that is formally registered under the federal workplace law, which gives it legal rights and obligations..
Hansard ↗Coalition reintroduces the bill to remove criminals from worksites
The bill was presented to Parliament as a renewed attempt to disqualifyA legal ban on holding a leadership role in a registered organisation. On this page, it can also stop someone from standing for office or acting behind the scenes. officials and cancel or restrict organisations involved in serious unlawful conduct.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Alleged CFMEUThe Construction, Forestry, and Maritime Employees Union. It is mentioned as a key example in the debate about alleged misconduct in the construction sector. intimidation, bullying and corruption drive the debate
During the second reading debate, supporters explicitly tied the bill to alleged unlawful conduct in the CFMEUThe Construction, Forestry, and Maritime Employees Union. It is mentioned as a key example in the debate about alleged misconduct in the construction sector. construction division and argued stronger removal powers were needed.
Hansard ↗Bill lapses at the end of Parliament
The proposal did not complete its parliamentary passage, so the stronger disqualification and deregistrationA court order that strips a union or employer association of its registered status, which is a much stronger step than removing individual officials. powers it sought were not enacted.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Legislative route
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Introduced and read a first time
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Second reading moved
Considered by scrutiny committee (11/09/2024): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 11 of 2024
Considered by committee
APH bill page notesThe bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
The main criticism was that the bill could be used to weaken unions by treating ordinary or justified union activity as criminal or minor breaches as grounds for disqualification or even deregistrationA court order that strips a union or employer association of its registered status, which is a much stronger step than removing individual officials.. That case was raised by Labor senators opposing the bill, who argued it went beyond targeting serious wrongdoing and amounted to a broader attack on workers' representation, pay, conditions and safety.
Criticism came from opponents in debate rather than a broad cross-party reservations case.
Could punish legitimate union activity
Opponents argued the bill could let governments or courts treat ordinary, justified or low-level union activity as misconduct serious enough to bar officials or threaten a union's future, rather than narrowly targeting genuinely criminal behaviour.
Could be used to break or weaken unions
Critics said the bill's deregistrationA court order that strips a union or employer association of its registered status, which is a much stronger step than removing individual officials. and branch-targeting powers were so strong they could be used to shut down or cripple unions over breaches that did not justify such severe penalties, weakening workers' collective voice.
Would undermine workers' rights and safety
Opponents argued the bill was aimed at weakening trade unions rather than just removing corrupt officials, and warned that reducing union strength would hurt freedom of association, wages, conditions and workplace safety.
Further sources
Votes
No recorded votes were found before this bill stopped proceeding.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Michaelia Cash strongly supports the bill and says Labor should back it because it would stop convicted criminals from getting right-of-entry permits and entering worksites.
Read in Hansard ↗Sheldon opposes the bill and says it is another attack on unions and working people.
Read in Hansard ↗Bilyk opposes the bill and says it is an extreme anti-worker and anti-union attack that would undermine freedom of association, pay and conditions, and workplace safety.
Read in Hansard ↗Scarr supports the bill, saying it is needed to remove corrupt or criminal officials from union leadership and restore rule of law on worksites.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
2 speakers · 2 oppose
“This bill rehashes a bill that those opposite couldn't get through the Senate on three occasions when they were last in government. There was an excellent Senate inquiry into the ensuring integrity bill back in 2019, with a dissenting report that did an excellent job of highlighting what an atrocity that bill was. The bill effectively creates grounds to disqualify union officials and deregister entire unions on the basis of minor and unintentional breaches of the law and gives the types of laws Mr Dutton would introduce for our workplaces, for example—”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Let's be clear: all Australian workers would suffer as a result of this extreme bill, not just those who are union members. All Australian workers should be in no doubt that the undermining of their pay and conditions, their job security and their safety at work is not an unintended consequence of this bill; it is a design feature. Do not be fooled that this bill is aimed at the CFMEU or designed to clean up the building and construction industry. This bill has implications for workers in every industry. It is the extreme Liberal-National coalition's antiworker agenda laid bare. I call on the Senate to reject this extreme bill and consign it to the garbage heap, where it belongs.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 3 support
“I want to talk about some of the sections in this bill, because this bill contains a number of provisions which mean that it wouldn't be the decision of politicians to actually take away the right of someone to be an official in a union like the CFMEU. It's actually up to the court. You didn't hear back from Senator Sheldon. This is about rule of law—something the CFMEU doesn't recognise. The CFMEU doesn't recognise rule of law. The High Court said that. They're the most recidivist union in Australia's history. They don't care. It's a cost of doing business. But this bill recognises the rule of law. It is only if an official of a union has been found to have committed a particular offence or contempt of court; engaged in some other sort of criminal finding or contempt; engaged in multiple failures to prevent contraventions by an organisation; committed some other impropriety; or are not fit and proper because they've been found to have engaged in fraud, dishonesty, misrepresentation or concealment of material, facts or a breach of duty that a application can be made to the court. Then the Federal Court decides what should be done.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“Let's have a look, though. They say we're attacking unions with this bill. Well, we're not. The last time I checked, this is a bill to ensure that criminals are not allowed on worksites, and it applies to registered organisations. I don't care whether you're an employer organisation or an employee organisation. You should not be able to be on a worksite if you have been convicted of a crime. It is as simple as that. The law, as we speak today, is deficient. It is allowing people who have been convicted of crimes to go onto worksites. That is absolutely unacceptable. What this bill will do is to clean that up.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“This bill is all about ensuring that those people who engage or have engaged in criminal behaviour do not go on our worksites across Australia. Our worksites should be safe places for Australians to go and work, earn money and go home and sleep safely at night.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Record
Senate · Introduced and read a first time
Introduced
The bill was formally presented to the chamber and read a first time, which starts its parliamentary journey.
Senate · Second reading moved
Second reading opened
A minister or sponsoring member moved the second reading, opening the main debate on the bill's purpose and principles.
Senate · Second reading debate
Second reading debate
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate · Lapsed at end of Parliament
Lapsed at end of Parliament
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills
Considered by committee
Considered by scrutiny committee (11 Sept 2024): Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills; Scrutiny Digest 11 of 2024
APH bill page notes
