I’m very pleased to rise in support of this motion. At the outset, I’d like to address some of the arguments that were made by Senator Tony Sheldon. I have a lot of respect for Senator Tony Sheldon. I have a lot of respect for his advocacy for workers in the Transport Workers’ Union when he was secretary of that union. I have a lot of respect with respect to the arguments he’s mounted in relation to some of the matters in relation to Qantas. I think he has demonstrated a true sincerity in representing the interests of working Australians, many of whom have been in very vulnerable positions. I have a deep respect for that.
I must say I could never imagine Senator Tony Sheldon in his day as a senior member of the union movement sending an underling, an associate, to a secret park meeting with Mick Gatto. I could never imagine it. He would never do it. He wouldn’t even consider it for a moment. He would immediately recognise how wrong it would be to do that, how wrong it would be to send an organiser to such a meeting with an underworld figure in the context of a union under administration. He would never do that. But we’re talking here not about the union that was led by Tony Sheldon, the TWU. We’re talking about the construction division of the CFMEU. Those are the sorts of practices which we’re seeing, even after it was placed in administration. I’ll get to some of the details in relation to that.
In relation to workplace health and safety, let me say this: I’ve visited businesses in Queensland that have had to deal with the practices of the CFMEU. They’ve had to deal with them coming on to their worksites and ostentatiously taking photographs of number plates of cars. They weren’t taking photographs of unsafe workplaces or matters where they might have had legitimate concerns. They were going up and taking photographs of number plates of managers’ vehicles. I’ve seen the impact that that intimidation has had on managers at those worksites. In my home state of Queensland, the conduct of the CFMEU construction division was so bad that the workplace health and safety inspectors of the Queensland government took protected industrial action so they didn’t have to visit construction sites controlled by the CFMEU construction division. This was because it represented a threat to their own workplace health and safety. That’s how bad it was in my home state of Queensland.
Every single major infrastructure project in Queensland suffered that 30 per cent—or whatever it is—blowout because of the activities of the CFMEU construction division. Every single major infrastructure project, even Ronald McDonald House at the Queensland Children’s Hospital, was the subject of unlawful CFMEU action, and the CFMEU had to pay penalties in relation to that action. It was part of their business operation, and that’s been stated not by a senator but by the High Court of Australia when considering the track record of the CFMEU. So let’s put that on the record.
Let’s turn to some of the disturbing reports that have been received over the last few days. The one I’ll read first is in relation to the one which Senator Sheldon referred to in relation to building companies. I’ll put this on the record because I think both leaders of trade union movements who are engaging in unlawful activity and also construction companies engaging in unlawful activity should be held to account. I’ll put this on the record. This article, ‘AFP asks top builders for details on payment to underworld figures’, reads:
The Australian Federal Police has dramatically entered the CFMEU and building industry scandal, revealing how a secret probe by detectives has uncovered huge sums of money paid to underworld figures to help secure union peace.
In a letter sent to up to a dozen companies by a senior AFP officer, the policing agency outlines suspicions that “building companies have been required to make facilitation payments to organised crime to prevent orchestrated stoppages at building sites”.
Let’s lance this boil in Australia’s construction industry. Let’s lance this boil. It is costing the Australian people so much. As Senator Brockman said, it’s costing us new hospitals, new highways and new schools. It’s costing us in terms of new high-density apartments. It’s costing us across the board. It can’t go on.
These are some of the other allegations that have come out of the Age and 60 Minutes recently. The article ‘CFMEU in fresh crisis over secret park meeting with underworld identity’ dated 3 October 2025, written by Nick McKenzie, reads:
After questions from this masthead about the clandestine meeting, which was initially confirmed by three sources, union boss Zach Smith admitted sending a CFMEU organiser to … meet Gatto at a discreet location in Melbourne. The sources, who requested anonymity due to fear of repercussions, said the liaison was called to discuss a dispute involving a construction company working for the Melbourne Airport operator, which is partly owned by the federal government’s Future Fund.
In what universe would a senior union official think it was appropriate to send an organiser to meet Mick Gatto in the seclusion of a park to talk about work stoppages? In what universe is that the right thing to do? In what universe would it take you any more than one minute to determine that would be the wrong thing to do? I go on:
During the meeting, in a park in East Melbourne on September 12, Gatto demanded the CFMEU allow airport contractor Maz Group to operate free of union pressure and requested he be a conduit for future union concerns—
Mick Gatto, he’s always there to help—
Two sources said that before the meeting, the organiser was instructed by Smith to meet Gatto where “no one could see” the pair.
In what universe is that the right thing to do?
And then we come to the administrator, and this is where there’s the need for this reference:
Irving said he had ordered an investigation into the scandal and would urgently publish a draft policy to curb the influence of construction industry fixers like Gatto.
Really? You need a draft policy to say, ‘Don’t order one of your underlings to meet Mick Gatto in a park where no-one can see you’? You need a policy to do that? I go on:
Smith told this masthead he took full responsibility for the “mistake” of sending an organiser to meet Gatto and said he intended to keep working under the government-imposed administration to “return the union to democratic control”—
Good on you, Zach—
“No organiser should be put in a situation which may put them in an unsafe position or opens them to undue pressure. I have apologised to the administrator and the organiser concerned and have taken steps to reallocate him away from this project.”
Seriously? This is a person sitting around the federal executive of the ALP. It was a mistake by someone of that seniority in the union movement? ‘Oh, I made a mistake. It was just a mistake.’
Then we have the disturbing report in the Age on 27 October, ‘CFMEU administrator sent corruption-busters away, then had to sack top figure’. What we would like to do is actually have a referral to the appropriate Senate committee in this place, table this article and put questions to the administrator to get the truth. As a previous speaker said: if there’s nothing to hide, then there’s nothing to fear. Just listen to this extraordinary stuff:
The Albanese government’s CFMEU reform chief abruptly abandoned two anti-corruption teams hired to uncover graft in the union, leaving serious misconduct allegations untouched for months as suspected crooked officials took key roles within the embattled union.
Three confidential sources who worked for CFMEU administrator Mark Irving, KC, also confirmed he failed to enact advice to seek more powers from the federal government to deal with wrongdoing …
Just consider that. We have a situation here where not one, not two, but three confidential sources working for the administrator were so concerned with respect to the conduct of the administrator that they took the public interest route of reporting their concerns to the Age. The article continues:
This masthead can also reveal that in addition to shuttering two corruption-busting teams — one headed by ex-federal police assistant commissioner Chris Craner and the second led by specialist anti-corruption investigators — the lawyer hired to run Irving’s anti-corruption probe quit just weeks into his appointment because of concerns the administration didn’t have adequate whistleblowing and investigative capacity.
I’ve spoken—as have others in this place, including the Acting Deputy President—with respect to the importance of appropriate whistleblowing procedures and protocols, so wouldn’t we like to hear from the lawyer who was hired to run Irving’s anticorruption probe and decided to quit just weeks into his appointment? Wouldn’t we like to hear evidence as to what actually made him quit? What were his concerns? Let’s give him the opportunity to put those concerns on the public record under parliamentary privilege. I go on:
But the revelations come as Irving faces fierce scrutiny over his administration’s performance particularly the promotion in July of a union boss who Irving was then forced to sack on Thursday after this masthead and 60 Minutes uncovered evidence indicating the official engaged in suspected widespread corrupt dealings with construction companies.
Irving’s administration was warned repeatedly—
repeatedly warned—
of sacked official John Perkovic’s history of questionable integrity but stood by his promotion in July to second in charge of the union’s Victorian branch.
What confidence does this give the Australian people, when the administrator actually promoted someone whom he’d been warned about to a more senior position and then had to sack after the media reported a story with respect to that person’s conduct? Extraordinary stuff! Again, this is what we should be having a references committee for—to ask questions, to probe, in relation to this matter.
I go on:
On Sunday, union leader Leo Skourdoumbis, the national assistant secretary Timber, Furnishing and Textiles Union …
and I should say that, presumably, he doesn’t have an ideological battle against the union movement. He’s an actual leader in the union movement, and this is what he said:
… Irving’s administration didn’t “have the people, resources or wherewithal to undertake this important task of eradicating corruption”.
“It must find people with the knowledge, experience and political will to do the job, or it will lurch from crisis to crisis. Members view it as a shambles,” he said.
That is what a senior member of a trade union that was previously the manufacturing wing of the CFMEU has said about the administration process. It’s not a Liberal Party senator; that’s a leader of a trade union.
Acting Deputy President, I say to you: the evidence is overwhelming. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that there needs to be a reference to the appropriate Senate committee to look into the conduct of the administration of the CFMEU.
