This bill is currently before Parliament.
Work & employment
The administratorThe independent person appointed to oversee the division. of the CFMEUThe union whose construction division is under administration.'s Construction and General Division could expel a member or ban an officer from union office for any period, including longer than the current five-year maximum or indefinitely.
Senator Jane Hume said the present five-year maximum could let people responsible for serious misconduct return to the CFMEUThe union whose construction division is under administration.. The explanatory memorandum points to administratorThe independent person appointed to oversee the division. Michael Crosby, who said the rules limited his action against John Setka to five years. The bill therefore gives the administratorThe independent person appointed to oversee the division. the option of imposing a longer or indefinite period where the conduct warrants it.
The CFMEUThe union whose construction division is under administration.’s Construction and General Division was placed into administration in August 2024, but the scheme still capped the administratorThe independent person appointed to oversee the division.’s expulsions and officer disqualifications at five years, even as serious misconduct allegations continued to shape the response. After administratorThe independent person appointed to oversee the division. Michael Crosby said on 30 July that the rules prevented a longer sanction for John Setka, Senator Jane Hume introduced this private senator’s bill on 19 August 2026 to allow longer or indefinite exclusions and prevent disqualified officers moving into other registered organisations.
Tony Sheldon (Labor) argued that the bill would not improve construction-site safety or tackle employers stealing wages and retirement contributions. He said construction accounted for 15.5 per cent of workplace deaths from 2003 to 2024, representing 761 deaths, while a Fair Work Ombudsman investigation found 68 per cent of the examined employers were breaking workplace laws and recovered more than $750,000 in 15 months. He also argued that the existing administration was already working: more than 200 office holders, including 27 senior leaders, had been removed, and federal agencies had more than 120 active investigations and cases.
Senator Jane Hume introduced this bill. Supportive speeches so far have come from Liberal, One Nation.
Did it become law?
Not yet
Final passage
No final vote yet
The bill has not yet completed passage through Parliament.
Days since introduction
48 days
Updated 06 Oct 2026.
Meaning
The administratorThe independent person appointed to oversee the division. of the CFMEUThe union whose construction division is under administration.'s Construction and General Division could expel a member or ban an officer from union office for any period, including longer than the current five-year maximum or indefinitely. The administratorThe independent person appointed to oversee the division. would choose the period; the bill would not automatically impose a lifetime ban.
A person disqualified under the administration scheme would clearly count as a "removed personSomeone barred from holding positions in registered organisations.". This is intended to stop them holding a position in another registered union or employer organisation.
The administratorThe independent person appointed to oversee the division. could reconsider an officer's existing disqualificationA ban on serving as an organisation officer. if it was imposed before the change and lasts more than four years. This is optional, and any decision to change the period must be made within 12 months after the provision starts.
The main changes would start the day after the bill receives royal assentFormal approval that turns a bill into law. — the formal approval that turns a bill into law.
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 1 Paragraph 323B(3)(e) Omit “expulsion of members and disqualification of officers for up to 5 years”, substitute “expulsion of members and disqualification of officers for any period”. 2 Subparagraph 323MA(1)(a)(i) After “office vacated)”, insert “, disqualified”. Fair Work (Registered Organisations) (CFMEU Construction and General Division Administration) Determination 2024 3 Paragraph 12(e) Omit “so long as the period is not greater than a period of 5 years”.Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) introduced text
2 Subparagraph 323MA(1)(a)(i) After “office vacated)”, insert “, disqualified”.Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) introduced text
4 Alteration of disciplinary actions taken prior to commencement (1) This item applies if: (a) the administrator takes disciplinary action under section 12 of the Fair Work (Registered Organisations) (CFMEU Construction and General Division Administration) Determination 2024 to disqualify an officer before the commencement of this item; and (b) the period of the disqualification is longer than 4 years. (2) The administrator may, after the commencement of this item, amend the period of the disqualification. Time limit on making decision (3) A decision to amend the period of a disqualificaFair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) introduced text
2 Commencement (1) Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms. Commencement information Commencement Date/Details 1. Sections 1 to 3 and anything in this Act not elsewhere covered by this table The day this Act receives the Royal Assent. 2. Schedule 1 The day after this Act receives the Royal Assent. Note: This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally enacted. It will not be amended to deal with aFair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) introduced text
Context
The CFMEUThe union whose construction division is under administration.’s Construction and General Division was placed into administration in August 2024, but the scheme still capped the administratorThe independent person appointed to oversee the division.’s expulsions and officer disqualifications at five years, even as serious misconduct allegations continued to shape the response. After administratorThe independent person appointed to oversee the division. Michael Crosby said on 30 July that the rules prevented a longer sanction for John Setka, Senator Jane Hume introduced this private senator’s bill on 19 August 2026 to allow longer or indefinite exclusions and prevent disqualified officers moving into other registered organisations.
CFMEUThe union whose construction division is under administration. construction arm enters administration
All branches of the CFMEUThe union whose construction division is under administration.’s construction arm were placed into administration with immediate effect.
ABC News ↗AdministratorThe independent person appointed to oversee the division. says rules limit John Setka sanction to five years
Michael Crosby told ABC’s 7.30 that the existing rules limited the suspension of John Setka’s membership to five years.
Fair Work Amendment (Disqualified Officers) explanatory memorandum ↗Senator Jane Hume introduces the bill
The private senator’s bill was formally presented in the Senate, beginning its parliamentary consideration.
Parliamentary timeline ↗Second reading debate opens over longer CFMEUThe union whose construction division is under administration. bans
The debate presented the bill as a response to the five-year cap by proposing longer or indefinite exclusions and clearer limits on disqualified officers holding positions in registered organisations.
Hansard ↗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
The bill reached this recorded parliamentary step.
Key criticism
Tony Sheldon (Labor) argued that the bill would not improve construction-site safety or tackle employers stealing wages and retirement contributions. He said construction accounted for 15.5 per cent of workplace deaths from 2003 to 2024, representing 761 deaths, while a Fair Work Ombudsman investigation found 68 per cent of the examined employers were breaking workplace laws and recovered more than $750,000 in 15 months. He also argued that the existing administration was already working: more than 200 office holders, including 27 senior leaders, had been removed, and federal agencies had more than 120 active investigations and cases.
Supporters said the existing clean-up did not answer the bill's narrower concern: the administratorThe independent person appointed to oversee the division. still could not impose a ban longer than five years, even for the most serious conduct. They argued that the administratorThe independent person appointed to oversee the division. should be able to choose a longer or indefinite period when warranted.
Further sources
Votes
No recorded votes have been found yet for this bill.
Parliamentary debate
Start here — lead voices
Sheldon opposes the bill, calling it a political attempt to weaken workers' voices that ignores existing action against corruption and fails to address unsafe conditions, wage theft and employer misconduct in construction.
Read in Hansard ↗Cash supports the bill because it would let the CFMEUThe union whose construction division is under administration. administratorThe independent person appointed to oversee the division. impose disqualifications longer than five years, including lifetime bans where warranted, and prevent disqualified officials from moving into other registered-organisation roles.
Read in Hansard ↗Hume strongly supports the bill, arguing that administrators need the power to exclude corrupt or intimidating CFMEUThe union whose construction division is under administration. figures for longer than five years, including indefinitely where warranted.
Read in Hansard ↗Kovacic supports the bill as a necessary measure to keep John Setka and other officials involved in serious corruption or criminal conduct out of union leadership, though she argues the bans should apply for life and across all registered unions.
Read in Hansard ↗All speeches by bloc
1 speaker · 1 oppose
“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:”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
3 speakers · 4 contributions · 3 support
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
“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.”Read the full speech in Hansard ↗
Hansard records 2 separate contributions by Maria Kovacic on this bill. They are grouped here so the speaker is listed once.
Second reading speech
Kovacic supports the bill because it would let the CFMEUThe union whose construction division is under administration. administratorThe independent person appointed to oversee the division. impose disqualifications longer than five years, including indefinitely, and prevent serious offenders from returning merely because the current statutory limit expires.
“This Bill before us today removes the five-year statutory limit, giving the Administrator the option to impose any longer or indefinite period where warranted. This should not even have had to happen.”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
Second reading speech
Kovacic supports the bill as a necessary measure to keep John Setka and other officials involved in serious corruption or criminal conduct out of union leadership, though she argues the bans should apply for life and across all registered unions.
“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?”Read this contribution in Hansard ↗
1 speaker · 1 support
“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.”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.
