Thursday, 13 November 2025

 Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:12): I rise on my motion 1117 on the CFMEU. I move:

That this house:

(1)   notes the sacking of Mr John Perkovic last week from the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) and the consequential questions arising about the flawed administration of the union;

(2)   further notes the apparent failure of regulatory agencies, including the Fair Work Commission and the labour hire agency; and

(3)   expresses concern at ongoing criminal behaviour in some sections of the Victorian construction industry including, in particular, the continuing role of organised crime within and associated with the CFMEU.

The sacking of John Perkovic from the CFMEU raises questions about the administration of the union, and indeed it is what has triggered this motion. But yesterday’s arrest of CFMEU figure John Setka on intimidation charges will be the last straw for many Victorians. The Victorian community are sick and tired of waking up to yet another headline of the corrupt and criminal behaviour attached to either the government projects or those criminals that are allowed to work and flourish on and around them. As far back as 2022 the Premier had knowledge of CFMEU threats, bullying, intimidation and blackmail on Big Build projects. Three years later the Premier conceded that illegality on government construction sites was ‘nothing new’ and she had been aware of such issues from time to time. Yet, pretty inexplicably, the government and the Premier failed to act and, in failing to act, failed the Victorian community and allowed our costs to soar and corruption to poison businesses and workplaces on their watch.

There has been a very human cost to this failure, and there has also been significant economic cost. Major projects in Victoria typically operate at 20 to 30 per cent premium to equivalent projects interstate, and that cost impost flows through every corner of the building industry, adding cost to housing, all other construction and ultimately food transport. And of course the overruns end up in higher taxes, higher debt and cuts to frontline services. What the latest headlines – the latest in years and years of headlines – tell us is that government is incapable of addressing corruption and incapable of addressing the perpetrators and the shadow underworld systems working to keep criminals in places of influence. They cannot do it, because if they could or if they ever were going to they would have.

We have had to put up with the failure of regulators in the Fair Work Commission and the Labour Hire Authority to stem corruption at its origin. The institutions charged with upholding integrity in the workplace fell asleep at the wheel.

The Fair Work Commission and other industrial regulators did not bring timely enforcement, effectively allowing unlawful conduct to continue unchecked. The state’s Labour Hire Authority did little until more or less forced to and then focused narrowly on weeding out dodgy labour firms but missed the entire wide range of endemic, corrupt, illegal and immoral practices occurring on worksites by a very specific group. As a consequence, legitimate operators were bullied out of the market and criminal elements profiteered, all under the noses of a government that proclaimed zero tolerance for corruption, even as, clearly by its own admission, it tolerated it in practice. The Victorian Big Build corruption saga stands as a stark lesson in governance failure. Political will and robust oversight are both needed to prevent corruption, and in this case both were found lacking.

The state Labor government, from Premier Jacinta Allan down through to the ministers, failed to proactively respond to credible warnings of wrongdoing. Whether that is due to complacency, political calculations, sheer negligence or all of the above, it is precisely this failure that enabled a corrupt culture to take root in projects funded by Victorian taxpayers. Because of these failures by both the government and regulators a toxic culture of intimidation, coercion and kickbacks has been allowed to plague Victoria’s construction industry for years.

The Labor Party’s close relationship with the CFMEU has clearly made it reluctant to confront the union’s problems, and only after public exposure under media pressure did the party distance itself, and even then in a limited fashion. It means that reform, what there was of it when it eventually came, had to be hurriedly introduced in hindsight. We had a government dribble out the pathetically weak Wilson review, which is the basis for equally pathetically weak reform legislation before the lower house this week, the Labour Hire Legislation Amendment (Licensing) Bill 2025. The industry sector have panned both variably as a whitewash, insufficient and pointless, and they are largely right. If you consider any new Big Build–related corruption and crime revelation over the last 12 months, the new laws in this bill would not have prevented one of them. It does not even go close to approaching the core issues. They are full of obvious loopholes and workarounds, yet this is the total sum of government reform.

The latest bill coming to the lower house shows how weak and avoidant the government is on genuinely addressing corruption on their own building sites, and so the headlines will continue. Victorians are sick of the headlines when they know that in any other walk of life this would be unacceptable. No normal business dealing with land tax, payroll tax, supply chain, labour rules and health and safety compliance would ever be given the latitude the government gives itself on its own projects. This is a big part of why the Victorian Big Build projects cost 30 per cent more than equivalent projects in other states. This is why the bullying, intimidation and corruption persists.

Recent police action is welcome. What it highlights is that the criminality is real and actionable, but let us keep in mind that there is a very, very big difference between the police catching criminals after the damage is done and the government’s prior knowledge and failure to act to ensure the corruption and criminality do not occur in the first place. They should not be applauded for the police’s work on a disaster that they are the architect of and allow to continue. I am sure there will be more arrests, because the government fosters the very environment in which criminality can take place. Claiming any credit for it is like an arsonist setting a house on fire and then claiming credit for the firemen who arrive and try and put it out. We are clearly in a situation where the government is more interested in protecting its own interests and image than addressing the problem. They claim zero tolerance, and yet they are happy by their lack of action to remain complicit.

None of this is to excuse the conduct of the corrupt elements of the CFMEU itself. As Liberals and Nationals, we remain incredibly concerned that the criminal elements still hold sway and seek influence and will continue to seek to intimidate. One cannot help but suspect that in the absence of genuine reform preventing it there is an underlying tension amongst criminal elements to just wait things out until the spotlight has moved on and they can get back to business as usual.

We might welcome the news that there is to be a clean out of the toxic culture at head office. Fine. But everybody knows that the underworld operate a shadow administration across government worksites and across the industry. We all see it. Only a government in denial would dispute it. Reform, if it is to achieve anything, must specifically focus on this and address this, and it must be done regardless of the close ties between the union and the government. This is pointed out because we now have systemic, institutionalised criminal corruption within government worksites, which is to say we have institutionalised criminal corruption within government. If that is not so, then prove it. Prove it with targeted reform that addresses it, not blanket laws that affect everyone but no-one specifically, not laws that sweep up right-acting stakeholders because the government wants to tiptoe around its complicity with a specific organisation.

We have reached a level of institutional corruption that can only be resolved by two things, Firstly, the Liberal and National parties repeat our call for a royal commission into corruption on the government’s Big Build projects. Enough is enough. It is time. Secondly, the Liberal–National parties have a policy of putting back in place a suitable building authority with teeth, one that would not allow this criminality to flourish, one that would not allow this or any other future government the convenience of looking the other way and sitting on information for years without acting. I commend this motion to the house.

 Sonja TERPSTRA (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:22): I rise to make a contribution on this motion in Mr Welch’s name. Having listened to Mr Welch’s contribution and read the motion, it seems to be a rehash and a regurgitation of a theme that those opposite want to just bang on about, which is about government bad, government debt, government corrupt. all these kinds of lines that they want to trot out. But in all of this, I have not once heard what Mr Welch might do if he was ever given the privilege of being the Minister for Industrial Relations or being in government. And the lecturing –

Richard Welch interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: On a point of order, Acting President, I sat in silence while Mr Welch made his contribution.

Richard Welch: I feel I did not provoke you like that.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Yes, you did. I ask that I be allowed the same courtesy – to be heard in silence.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Jacinta Ermacora): It is reasonable to be heard in silence, and I ask the chamber to listen in silence to Ms Terpstra.

Sonja TERPSTRA: Thank you, Acting President; a very wise ruling. I will continue with this – the hypocrisy from those opposite. I have been sitting in the chamber all day today listening to the various things that we have to deal with on opposition business day. You get all the same words being trotted out: ‘ridiculous’, ‘hubris’, ‘corrupt’, all the usual standard lines and standard words that the opposition always resort to. They are heavy on rhetoric but light on actual solutions.

What I can tell you is that I know hardworking people who work in the construction industry, who work on our government projects and are building infrastructure for Victorians. This is infrastructure that is much needed by Victorians. They are sick to death of the Liberals kicking them in the guts and their union in the guts, because the members run their union despite what Mr Welch says. He would not have a clue what a union is. He has probably never been a union member; I know that for sure. But I can tell you, as a proud trade unionist and as someone who understands working people and the issues they face in employment, it is only when we have good, strong unions that we see people get the protection they deserve.

I will talk about the sorts of things that might happen in the construction sector if we did not have a strong union to protect workers and their rights. I know the construction sector, and I am sure Mr McIntosh will reflect on this as well and would certainly know this. The construction industry is an inherently dangerous industry to work in, not because of the reasons that Mr Welch wants to bang on about but because when you are working with heavy machinery and equipment it is inherently dangerous.

People die going to work building the infrastructure that Victorians need, and this is why we have strong unions who are there to protect working people. Despite the garbage that Mr Welch goes on with, our government has been clear about this. We support construction workers, and we thank them every day for the work that they do. But we have also taken action in regard to the things that have occurred. Mr Welch wants to go on with all this rhetoric, but if he is aware of any criminal activity or has concerns about something, he should report it to the appropriate authorities. He should report it, rather than coming in here and raising motions just to bang on with rhetoric, which does absolutely nothing to address the issues. They do absolutely nothing to address the issues.

It gives me the opportunity to talk about the things that we have done. Mr Welch over there wants to criticise the Wilson review. Well, I have not heard what he would do. I have not heard one thing about what he would do, because he has got no clue, no idea, no policy and no plan other than just to be critical and just to go on with rhetoric and criticise and criticise. Gold medal to you, Mr Welch, for Olympic level criticism and complaining – gold medal. But let me tell you what the Wilson review actually did. We are getting on with implementing the recommendations from that review, which was a report into Victorian government bodies’ engagement with construction companies and construction unions. We are making sure that people come forward with the information about conduct on work sites that have complaints processes and protections they deserve. We have actually implemented real processes that allow workers to come forward.

Prior to the break, we introduced and passed the Wage Theft Amendment Bill 2025. Let me talk about that. That is very important.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Sonja TERPSTRA: It is one they oppose. But there are multiple examples of large employers who rip workers off, and this is why our government had to take action. But no, we are not hearing a word from Mr Welch over there and whether he thinks that large companies ripping off workers, not paying superannuation and the like is okay, because it is not okay. I will tell you right now that if we did not have good, strong unions on the beat, we would not know about these things, because the bosses certainly are not going to come forward and say, ‘I’ve ripped workers off. I’ve stolen wages and superannuation from hardworking people.’ But no, they opposed this bill – those opposite opposed the wage theft bill. That was about making sure that workers can recover money stolen by employers from them because of the work that they did. It is an absolute disgrace. We passed that legislation, and it legislated our commitment to creating a new complaints referral service within the Wage Inspectorate Victoria, because again, workers have to jump through multiple hoops to get the money they have basically earned from employers who want to steal from them. It is a disgrace. This new service will be responsible for receiving complaints and tip-offs at public construction projects and ensuring that those complaints are referred to the appropriate authorities.

Also, we have strengthened the Labour Hire Authority’s regulatory powers with a bill that was introduced into Parliament last sitting week. These reforms will expand the fit and proper person test to include past indictable convictions, insolvencies, close association with an unfit or proper person or membership to criminal organisations. Again, we have strengthened that. Construction policies and contracts for Victorian government-funded construction projects will include clauses that cover criminal or other unlawful conduct, requiring contractors to report and address suspected criminal or unlawful conduct on worksites and promote the new complaints referral body. There are some action items that this government has already done and put into place. But again I am hearing nothing from Mr Welch and those opposite about what they might do if they were ever given the opportunity to be in government. They have got no plan. They have got absolutely no plan other than just continued rhetoric.

In terms of the anti-corruption measures we have put in place, I note that the labour hire commissioner has said he has already taken action against hundreds of dodgy labour hire companies in Victoria’s construction industry, and his soon-to-be-boosted powers will enable him to do even more to clean up the industry. The labour hire commissioner and his organisation, the Labour Hire Authority, is an incredibly hardworking organisation that every day makes sure that dodgy labour hire companies are brought into line. The IBAC report from 2023 into corruption risks on major transport infrastructure projects found that the Victorian Infrastructure Delivery Authority (VIDA), which was previously the Major Transport Infrastructure Authority (MTIA), is taking steps to mitigate and detect many corruption risks and has a well-developed integrity framework. These sorts of things are never static. There is always a need for continuous improvement, right, because obviously when you put things in place, people find ways of getting around it.

You need to continually improve and continually take action to make sure you get around any changes in behaviour. Again, it is not a static-type thing. You have to continually improve and continually look at upgrading solutions. I know that VIDA, formerly the MTIA, are doing that. As I said, IBAC in 2023 found that they had a well-developed integrity framework. Again, all the bingo words over there – corrupt, bad, all the rest of it – are just hot rhetoric, honestly. It is just hot air and rhetoric.

In response to crime we passed the Criminal Organisations Control Amendment Bill 2024 to give Victorian police the tools they need to get organised crime off worksites. We strengthened Victoria’s unlawful association scheme, introduced a new serious crime prevention order and prohibited the public display of gang colours as well. Under the legislation members of organised crime groups can be banned from prescribed government worksites as well.

In terms of investment we have invested in eradicating the rotten culture exposed in parts of Victoria’s construction sector. We have invested $6.1 million as part of the 2025–26 state budget to fund the government’s response to the Wilson review. We are also investing in Victoria’s future, in the way that only Labor governments do. Our Big Build investments are boosting the economy, creating more than 50,000 jobs and building the road and rail projects that Victorian families want and need to get home safer.

What we know about those opposite is that all they know how to do is cut. If they were ever given the opportunity to be in government, they would cut, cut, cut, and those cuts would be deep and harsh. They only know how to tear things down. They certainly do not know how to build anything, because they have never built anything. And the continued disinformation about blowouts on projects is all garbage – it is all complete garbage. You have only got to look at what the Auditor-General has said about our projects. As I said, if they were ever in government you could just imagine the chaos that would reign supreme because they are disorganised, hopeless, lacking policy, lacking direction and bitterly divided amongst themselves. The government will not be supporting this motion.

 Moira DEEMING (Western Metropolitan) (16:32): I rise to support this motion because the great threat facing Victoria today is not unions themselves, it is not private businesses as a class, it is not government as a structure, it is the fact that corruption has been allowed to spread across all three. And unless we confront that honestly, then all this violence and intimidation, all the cost blowouts and all the social decay that is hurting every single Victorian are actually going to destroy us. Unions have proven that they cannot self-regulate. Businesses cannot self-regulate either. It is actually the role of the government, and as we know, this government have proven time and time again that they are just not up to the task. We actually have to save unions from corrupt leadership, we have to save businesses from coercion and distortion and we have to save Victoria with a government that is actually willing to protect workers rights directly in the law, instead of outsourcing those rights to commercialised, self-interested, profit-driven and power-hungry corrupted unions.

The motion asks us to consider three things: the sacking of a senior CFMEU official, that is unions; the failure of key regulators, that is government; and the role of organised crime in the construction industry and business. The dismissal of John Perkovic is not an isolated employment decision of course, it is a symptom of the deeper rot that has been allowed to take hold in the CFMEU in Victoria. It is part of a wider pattern. We could talk about John Setka, the menacing and harassing emails directed at union-appointed administrators; Steven Deer, 21 fraud offences; the independent reviews that describe parts of the CFMEU’s operations as a ‘cycle of lawlessness’. These things are not random. Intimidation has been normalised, misconduct has been overlooked, and of course who foots the bill? Workers. Workers come last.

I heard it said over there, ‘Why is anyone surprised? Construction’s a very dangerous industry. It’s got lots of heavy machinery.’ Well, I think they are very highly skilled workers and they are perfectly capable of dealing with that machinery, but what they cannot deal with and could not be expected to deal with is this ridiculous institutionalised corruption, the blackmail, the money laundering, the drugs, the threats, the violence. And on the human consequences, we have all seen these headlines. They are absolutely awful. Do you remember that 17-year-old apprentice who turned up on a worksite in the wrong union T-shirt, was locked in a shed and went home and committed suicide?

That is not a union. That is not a union, and Victorians will put unions in the bin if this kind of corruption is allowed to continue.

Women on construction sites were harassed, assaulted and treated like prostitutes – they did not even make it to be diversity, equity and inclusion hires. They were treated like playthings, all under the nose of this government, which rants on and on about its gender equality credentials.

We have got these young men emerging from prisons or crisis or from being convicted of petty crimes. They are vulnerable, they feel alone and then they are groomed into these networks where they are made into career criminals, and we lose another generation of young boys. What about the contractors and the subbies? They know that if they refuse certain demands or if they work with the wrong person, that means they might not ever work again. That is not solidarity. That is not union behaviour, it is cartel behaviour. It is being done under the banner of the good name of unions. But that is certainly not what is going on.

We are also asked to consider the failure of the Fair Work Commission and the Labour Hire Authority – but we all know these failures did not start last week. These have been unfolding and entrenched in this state for years. The agencies that were meant to be independent referees were under-resourced, it looks to me, systematically, by design, and they were politically constrained so that there was this environment in our state where challenging corruption in unions was considered more trouble than it was worth. In practice what happened was that the unions became the de facto regulators. They were the ones who decided who worked, who stayed, who spoke up and who was pushed out. Workers believed, erroneously, that the law would protect them from corrupt unions, but nobody did. Over many, many years, unions in Victoria – many of them, not all of them – have shifted from being worker advocates to political actors, funders, organisers, factional enforcers and powerbrokers. This is a blurring of representation and control, and it has reshaped the entire industrial landscape.

At the same time businesses, whose proper role is to provide the goods and services that families rely on, to create jobs and skills and to build the prosperity that funds our public services without burdening taxpayers, have been forced to operate under coercion, intimidation and political favour trading rather than fair competition. In this environment, workers are exploited three times over: first, as members of corrupt unions where they are forced to give their dues, which are then spent on delegate perks and political power plays; second, as taxpayers, funding these public projects with inflated prices; and third, as citizens, where the money that is wasted means they have to wait longer for hospitals, for ambulances and for infrastructure. The same worker pays three times and still ends up last in line. That is not representation. That is classic exploitation.

The third component is about organised crime. We have all heard about the investigation showing that intimidation, extortion and cartel-style conduct has become widespread, with workers being threatened, beaten up and stolen from in a culture where crossing the wrong person can end a business. It is not just an industrial relations matter. They are driving up the cost of living. Since 2014 Victoria has seen more than 50 new or increased taxes, and many of these charges exist to absorb the inflated costs that were created by rorted training schemes, inflated labour hire, rigid work practices and a politicised industrial culture. These costs flow directly into higher rents, higher mortgages, higher energy bills, higher freight and transport costs and higher everyday prices for the everyday people.

And when services fail under the weight of all this corruption and dysfunction, who is going to pay again? Families, through private fees and delays or just going without and suffering. You know who never goes without? Those rich union bosses and well-paid politicians –

A member: Like you.

Moira DEEMING: Yes, I am well paid – not as well paid as these fat-cat union bosses who are exactly the same as the corrupt corporate bosses that are claimed to be the ones fought against.

Now, when a government is actually doing its job, workers should be able to live their lives knowing that their rights are protected through clear, enforceable laws.

That is what Victorians deserve. A union’s proper purpose should be to give workers a fair voice to advocate for their rights, but you need clear laws to show when they have been broken.

At their best, unions lift standards, improve safety and secure decent conditions. We do not need to destroy unions; we need them. We just need to save them, actually – we need to reclaim them. We need legal standards that prevent corruption from taking root. And let us not forget that the party that has claimed to stand for workers has governed this state for the better part of 20 years, yet it has never legislated the basic rights it claims to champion. Oh, they have campaigned on them and marched on them and fundraised on them but just never, ever delivered them in the law. Instead they were fine outsourcing them to corrupted unions that they refused to – or just could not – rein in for some reason. And these unions answer to no elector, no democratic process that is public and no transparent standard.

The era of corruption in this state has got to end. If a Victorian does an honest day’s work, pays their taxes and plays by the rules, then their safety and their livelihood and their rights should never, ever depend on the whims of political insiders or industrial cartels. That is how we are going to restore integrity to unions, confidence to business and fairness to Victoria.

 Aiv PUGLIELLI (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (16:41): I rise to speak somewhat briefly to this motion, which, let us be honest, is another attempt by the Liberal Party to smear unions – to try to smear them anyway – in any way they can while also casting aspersions, in this case against Fair Work and the labour hire agency. I will state from the outset that allegations of criminal or corrupt behaviour must absolutely be investigated. I would hope we all agree on that in this chamber. But I will not stand by while this broken party attempts to delegitimise the critical role that unions play in representing workers’ needs and protecting their rights, all the while ignoring the scandals and dodgy behaviour of property developers and big corporations. You lot are intent on going after the organisations that are set up to fight for workers’ rights and are instead giving free kicks to the big companies that flout the rules and game the system for their own benefit.

On top of this – to be very clear – this motion will not reduce any potential criminal or corrupt behaviour, and it will not make workers safer at work. It will not. To address corruption we need to bring our anti-corruption bodies up to the standards of other jurisdictions so that they have the power to investigate all corruption, including conflicts, including jobs for mates and including kickbacks. Now, this can be done. This could have been done through a bill that was introduced to this chamber recently, the Greens’ IBAC bill. I will note this bill actually previously passed this upper house with the support of all non-government members – but not the government, I will note. It was voted down by the government in the lower house and could not progress. We should really actually be talking about that. I should note that this bill would have seen the remit of IBAC strengthened and expanded, and this, alongside more funding, would have tangibly improved our efforts to tackle corruption in Victoria. But instead we have this motion, which is disappointing.

My Greens colleagues and I will continue to fight for real improvements to our integrity and oversight systems here in this state, and at the same time we will continue to stand with unions in their work to improve workers rights and the conditions of workers right across our state.

 Tom McINTOSH (Eastern Victoria) (16:44): We cannot have criminality in any sector in our state, whether that is finance, our NGOs, our sporting organisations or indeed the construction sector. It is incredibly important to our state and it is incredibly important to our collective prosperity. The construction unions are obviously incredibly important to the industry and the broader sector. We cannot have corruption and we cannot have intimidation in the sector, whether that is from our unions or our builders. For all Victorians, we need the sector to work as well as it can and we need strong unions for the tens and tens of thousands who work in the sector.

We know that those opposite have very few values, but one of the things they do gather around and agree upon is suppressing workers’ wages. That is a policy of the Liberal Party. We know they will not invest in the infrastructure that our state needs and we know they will not invest in the workforce of our state.

I am proud to be part of a government that has invested in the workforce. When I started my apprenticeship, I feel very strongly that I worked with perhaps the end of the generation that wore overalls, that had been through the employment pathways of the last century doing apprenticeships and being employed for decades with an employer and taking immense pride in the work they did. I am incredibly proud that under subsequent Labor governments this century we have rebuilt, first of all, the training pathways through our TAFE system. We have created pathways into the workforce, ensuring that our big infrastructure projects are taking on trainees and taking on apprentices and we are creating that pathway. There was a comment from the other side before that construction workers know how to handle this big, heavy equipment. They are smart enough to do that. Well, when you are talking about people entering a workforce that is incredibly dangerous, it takes a hell of a lot of time to get the hours under your belt, particularly for young workers going into the workforce, because, let us be honest, there are a lot of people in this workforce who have not gone to the end of school, so they are not entering at 19 years old or whatever. We are talking about people entering it at 15, 16 or 17, which is something that is another really important part of this workforce – that we are enabling people to find employment where they can gain an income, can support themselves, can support their families and can make a really good contribution to their community through working in the construction sector.

I am incredibly proud that as Victorians and as Australians, unlike some nations in the world where construction workers are looked down on, I think as a consequence of decisions made by conservative governments in the 1990s when construction workers lacked that workforce pipeline, we now see the immense value in people working in construction and various trades and how important they are to our economy, whether that is working in remote sites, regionally or in metro areas.

As I was saying, the importance of that pipeline, that education pathway – and in Victoria we have an incredibly professional construction sector that we should all be proud of; there are other states and other nations in the world where it is far more transient, it is less valued by the people that work in it and you do not get the quality. Quality outcomes are something that we all want in our construction so it stands the test of time and so that it is safe for people. It is not just for those people working on construction sites in the construction industry. It is for all of us who pass through any building, any public asset or any public infrastructure that we are all safe going about our day-to-day work.

Richard Welch: On a point of order, Acting President, I am listening respectfully to Mr McIntosh’s speech, and it has been a fine speech, but it actually goes nowhere near the motion. I would ask that he address the topic of the motion itself.

Harriet Shing: On the point of order, Acting President, the motion itself actually does refer to workplace representation. It also traverses subject matter which you, Mr Welch, in speaking to the motion, went to in some great detail. There is a degree of latitude provided to the first speaker on a motion, but having said that, you also did open the door in respect of the contribution that Mr McIntosh is now responding to. So this falls very squarely within the scope and the contemplation of the motion itself and the role which unions play in contemporary workplaces.

Richard Welch: Further to the point of order, Acting President, that is a mischaracterisation of my speech. I did not go to any of those areas, and there has not been one mention of one thing that is in any of the three clauses of this motion – the corruption, the regulatory agencies and the criminal behaviour. There has not been one mention of any of those things.

The ACTING PRESIDENT (Michael Galea): I do not find that there is a point of order, but I ask the member to ensure he is relevant to the motion.

Tom McINTOSH: Mr Welch wants to talk about corruption. We know they vote against workplace safety, we know they want to see workers’ wages suppressed, we know they will not invest in infrastructure and we know they will not invest in services. We know the Liberals will cut, cut, cut as they have done any time they have had an opportunity to be in government.

If we want to talk about corruption, why don’t we talk about the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry and how the big banks collected $850 million in fees for no service and there were dead clients involved? We could talk about wage theft and the Commonwealth Bank, the university staff at Melbourne University and the Super Retail Group. Qantas sacked 1700 workers to prevent them from exercising their rights under the Fair Work Act 2009 and paid $120 million to the ACCC for selling tickets to cancelled flights. You do not hear the Liberals getting up and talking about that, because they are absolutely motivated by putting workers under their heels.

We know they do not have any values. We see that whether it is federally with their colleagues in the federal caucus or whether it is here. They fight amongst themselves. They do not trust each other. They fight each other for positions of leadership to try and get ahead because there are no underlying values that inform policies that have a plan to improve this state. They simply do not have them. On this side, we collectively believe in shared values that – you know what, Mr Welch – grew out of the union movement. We want to see our workforce go to work and come home safely, whether they be retail workers, whether they be public transport workers or whether they are in the health system. No matter where people are working, we want people to come home safely and we want people to be paid well. We want people to ensure, as Ms Shing just said, that they can get superannuation.

Richard Welch interjected.

Tom McINTOSH: Yes, these sorts of entitlements that for decades you have stood against and pushed back progress on.

Richard Welch interjected.

Tom McINTOSH: Sorry, not you, Mr Welch, the Liberal Party. Before I was interrupted, what I was talking about was this concept and the comments from the other side that workers will be fine, workers will be safe and workers know what they are doing. I was talking about the pipeline of young workers, but every year we go to work on International Workers’ Memorial Day and we stand and acknowledge every life lost, whether that is in manufacturing, whether that is in agriculture – lots of farmers lose their lives – or whether it is construction or all the injuries that occur in workplaces. It is unions that for decade upon decade upon decade have fought to ensure that workplace safety standards are improved and that pay and conditions allow people to care for themselves and their loved ones and to have money to be productive and to contribute financially and economically to their community to see our state thrive. I oppose this motion. I will leave my contribution there.

 Evan MULHOLLAND (Northern Metropolitan) (16:54): I do enjoy a good old-fashioned Wednesday – now Thursday – arvo debating session. We have heard a few interesting contributions, and I rise to speak in support of my friend Mr Welch’s motion.

Members interjecting.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I have been friends with Mr Welch for over a decade, thank you. Ms Terpstra tried to play the old class war instinct thing, so did Mr McIntosh. She said none of us have ever been members of a union. We know that is not true; my colleague Mrs Deeming has.

I have. I was a member of the SDA for about four years, and I was also the general secretary of the Victorian branch of the National Union of Students – elected to that position. So I understand unions, and I think by and large they do a good job representing their workplaces. But there is one particular union that does not do a good job, and I think we can all agree on that. Even the government has agreed on that, although its approach is a bit of a wet lettuce approach. Last month we saw the sacking of John Perkovic from the CFMEU over allegations that he took bribes and other corrupting benefits from labour hire firms. To quote a report in the Australian Financial Review:

His dismissal is an embarrassment for the administration, which was installed by the Albanese government last year to clean up the CFMEU following reports of underworld infiltration and bikie appointments.

This is not just another story about the CFMEU, it is another example of the chaos, corruption and division that have come to define this union under its leadership, and for too long the CFMEU has operated as a law unto itself. It has been riddled with allegations of bullying, intimidation and misconduct. Instead of standing up for workers, it has become known for internal power struggles and infighting and standover tactics. Workers deserve better. They deserve a union that defends their rights, ensures their workplaces and fights for fair pay. They do not deserve to be represented by an organisation that is consistently in the headlines for the wrong reasons.

We have seen frightening reports in the media of criminal activity on job sites. The Age reported some worrying instances on government worksites, including one woman who was seen on camera being bashed in her lunch break by a bikie-linked health and safety representative on a government-funded worksite. Another woman was locked in a small room on a government hospital site with a worker who was released from jail for threatening to kill a woman. He smoked ice and blew it in her face. A third woman was bashed outside of her worksite by a person with links to CFMEU figures, and to make matters worse, instead of the victims being supported, they are the ones here that end up being kicked off government worksites. That is what happened. In March the ABC reported that Victoria Police were expanding an operation investigating allegations of underworld infiltration of the CFMEU, including on state government projects. The Herald Sun reported this year that the CFMEU were still wielding power, causing fear and calling the shots on building sites.

Well, Mr McIntosh will play into the old class war argument of ‘You’re against workers.’ Well, I have sat down with multiple contractors who have been threatened and blackmailed off government sites. I have sat down with Indigenous-owned businesses who have been kicked off –

John Berger: Did you report it?

Evan MULHOLLAND: I have written letters, yes, every time to the Victorian Infrastructure Delivery Authority, to the minister –

Tom McIntosh: To the police?

Evan MULHOLLAND: To the responsible authorities – several letters. You guys did not do it for a very long time. I have sat down with businesses that have been kicked off government worksites for who they belong to or who they are friends with or who does not like them at the time. And do you know what the key link is with all of these figures? They are using the under $30 billion North East Link as a proxy to extort people out of work on every other Big Build site in Victoria – ‘If you don’t get rid of this particular contractor down at Mordialloc, then your company won’t get a job on the North East Link,’ ‘If your company won’t pay $10,000, you won’t get work on a different construction site,’ ‘If your workers don’t pay an intro fee of $5000, you won’t get work on the North East Link.’

How do you possibly think that this kind of action is okay?

Harriet Shing interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: I will say to Ms Shing that every single person I have written with I have referred to the appropriate authorities and received a confirmation of response. Even in one of the cases the Victorian Infrastructure Delivery Authority confirmed publicly that it had received an investigation, as has Minister Williams. I get all these interjections on the other side. I have never, not once, not reported any allegations to the appropriate authorities.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: Yes, I have, as I always do. Attempts to negotiate an outcome internally within the CFMEU organisation were very much unsuccessful. There are still problems on Victorian taxpayer–funded construction sites where the management of those construction sites and the delivery of those construction sites are not working. They are not working to the benefit of taxpayers, and they are not working to the benefit of hardworking individuals.

We saw that with Mickleham Road project stage 1 in the northern suburbs, where Indigenous businesses were kicked off the Mickleham Road site in favour of a brand new Indigenous labour hire company linked to Mick Gatto. How is that fair? No wonder it was the most expensive road project per kilometre in the history of the state, when you had the CFMEU running the show. This union is still taking Victorians for a ride.

Ms Terpstra said that she had not heard any of our plans regarding how we will tackle this. We released a plan well over a year ago to bring back the successful construction code of the Napthine government and create a construction enforcement Victoria authority to apply that code and to crack down on the blatant corruption that keeps happening on our construction sites.

I am sorry to say to Mr Puglielli: I will not be lectured to by a member of the Greens political party, when – now thankfully the former member for whatever seat in Queensland – Max Chandler-Mather stood up at a rally with CFMEU members, not wanting them to go into administration and wanting them to keep going how they were. Sorry, I am not going to be lectured to like that. He had the gumption to yell about property developers. I dare him to take a contrary view to the government’s planning bill, otherwise he is just going to keep supporting the very people he hates.

Harriet Shing interjected.

Evan MULHOLLAND: It is relevant because I am speaking on the topic. We have seen scandal after scandal. We know document after document after document about the Premier being warned about CFMEU corruption on Victorian construction sites, but you know why she has applied a wet-lettuce approach. She has been the minister responsible or Premier for over a decade. She has enabled the CFMEU to take hold. The AWU does one deal in South Australia, and the CFMEU walk off every single Victorian Big Build construction site in Victoria. How does anyone think that that is appropriate? It is not. Jacinta Allan and this government were the ones literally writing the CFMEU into contracts for the Commonwealth Games athletes’ villages, saying, ‘If you’re not going to use the CFMEU workforce, you need not apply.’ That is the length to which this government has enabled the CFMEU dominance here in Victoria. No other contractors have appeared. Usually you got into a room and it was said, ‘It’s not going to work if you don’t have a CFMEU workforce.’ The government literally wrote it into that contract. No wonder the Commonwealth Games were a disaster and we had to torch over $500 million – no wonder. I support this motion. It is a great motion.

 John BERGER (Southern Metropolitan) (17:04): I thought I had heard it all, but that performance there takes the cake. I rise to contribute on this motion by Mr Welch. This motion discusses a few things in parts: (1) that this house should note the sacking of John Perkovic from the CFMEU and note the consequent questions arising about the flawed administration of the union; (2) that it discusses the behaviour of regulatory agencies, including the Fair Work Commission and the labour hire agencies; and (3) the motion expresses concern at the behaviour of some parts of the Victorian construction industry and allegations linked to organised crime that are associated with the CFMEU.

This government takes the integrity of the union movement seriously. More than that, I take this stuff very seriously.

Next year I will be celebrating 40 years membership of the Transport Workers’ Union branch. The union that I came from gave me every opportunity in life. It gave me a voice in the workplace, and it got me to where I am today. When I started working 30 years ago at the TWU I had just had one job and that was at Ansett Australia. It was a great job with great conditions and even better memories. I know a lot of the stories about this place, how there have been some rotten eggs in the union movement. The Liberals say that on our side of the chamber we do not take this stuff seriously, that we are somehow complicit in it and that we are somehow condoning this. That could not be further from the truth. Minister Stitt is another lifelong unionist. I just want to say about the minister that I met her 30 years ago when she was an organiser with the ASU and I was an organiser with the TWU. People like us take it seriously. Minister Tierney was the first woman to become the state secretary of the vehicle division of the Automotive Metals and Engineering Union 13 years ago; it is now part of the AMWU. She served as its first federal president for six years. Mr Galea spent 11 years – the best part of his 20s – working as an organiser for the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association, the mighty SDA.

You would think from what those opposite say that people like us join the union for the money, that it would be a cushy job. John Howard, the bloke those on the other side of the chamber lionise, the same bloke who ruined the country for a generation – I heard him say the other day on a podcast that too many Labor politicians do not have real world experience because all they did was work for unions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Most people in the union movement do not do it for the money. As I was saying before, I left a well-paid job, a stable income, a job with great entitlements and conditions, and I took a pay cut of 70 per cent when I worked at the TWU. I did not do it for the money. I did it because I cared about the mission of the union, and I cared about what it was doing for workers.

I also want to briefly touch on the allegations against the Fair Work Commission and the Labour Hire Authority (LHA). As Mr Welch would well know, a former Premier of Victoria, Mr Jeffrey Kennett, referred Victoria’s powers to legislate on industrial relations to the Commonwealth in the 1990s. Except for a few select matters – for instance, matters involving our staff members or ministerial offices – the government has no powers to do anything here. Mr Welch would know full well that the Fair Work Commission is a matter for the federal government.

I also want to briefly mention the other work the government has done in this space to combat organised crime in the construction industry. In December the Premier announced that the Labor government would accept all parts of the recommendations of the Formal Review into Victorian Government Bodies’ Engagement with Construction Companies and Construction Unions. This is a formal review that was conducted independently by Greg Wilson, and the government said it would accept these recommendations either in principle or in full. This is relevant to the part of the motion on the Labour Hire Authority. The government, at the time in December, accepted the review and as part of it the review’s identification that labour hire was found to be ‘a problematic area in relation to the allegations that have led to this review’. We know that it provides a potential route for someone who has been dismissed to return under another labour hire firm, and that this sometimes is just unacceptable. That is why the government committed to strengthening the Labour Hire Authority’s regulatory powers by expanding a fit and proper person test. That means expanding it to include indictable convictions, insolvencies, close associations with unfit or improper persons or memberships of criminal organisations.

As part of that, the government committed to consulting and listening far and wide on these changes. And, guess what, we have done that. That part of the process we have dealt with in the business of legislating. We have to listen to the Department of Justice and Community Safety, Victoria Police, the Office of Public Prosecutions, the LHA and Workforce Inspectorate Victoria. All of these bodies were consulted. We ensured their voices were heard during the development of the bill. Industrial Relations Victoria also undertook targeted consultations with employer and construction industry peak bodies and unions on what the approach to this should look like. We wanted to make sure our implementation of recommendation 4 of the Wilson review concerning the definition of labour hire provider was dealt with favourably. As part of the legislative process we heard that stakeholders were broadly supportive of the changes and in particular stakeholders viewed the potential alignment with the Queensland approach in a positive light.

As Mr Welch will well know too, this consultation has been valuable in shaping the final bill. In fact this consultation was made and done in order to advance the Labour Hire Legislation Amendment (Licensing Bill) 2025, a bill that is now before the other place. It was introduced on 14 October, just last sitting week.

The Allan Labor government will continue to build on the foundations to create fair wages, safe workplaces and respect for working people. It is our responsibility to ensure that we continue to advocate for the people we represent. As someone who is deeply proud of my background in the TWU, I place high value on strong worker protections. It is a principle that I carry into this chamber and every time I stand to speak. Every worker deserves to feel safe and respected on site. These protections are not negotiable and are fundamental to fair and decent work.

As someone who got his start as a rank-and-file union delegate, I find it insulting that organised crime and outlaw motorcycle gangs have gotten themselves into the position of delegates, not to strengthen their workplace or to help a mate but to help themselves. That is not unionism and that is not solidarity, it is selfishness.

These matters are being dealt with. These labour hire laws are addressing the risk posed by organised crime and bikies, and a new complaints mechanism within Industrial Relations Victoria has the power to get it done – and we know that there is a lot to be done. That is because, as the Premier said, part of the culture was rotten at its roots – and I want to acknowledge the work done by Greg Wilson in his report. He has done diligent work, including the eight final recommendations that were made. As the administrator of the CFMEU Mark Irving said, the report highlighted the structural requirements that need to be made to the entire system. He said:

It demands a whole-of-industry response, from unions to employers, government agencies and law enforcement.

That is what we are doing. That is what the former federal employment and workplace relations minister, Minister Watt, said. Minister Watt was in support of the report and our commitment to establish the new complaints body. The Allan Labor government will continue to give Victoria Police the tools they need to get organised crime off worksites, strengthening Victoria’s unlawful association scheme, introducing new serious crime prevention orders and prohibiting displays of gang colours.

While we are fighting this, we must remind ourselves that not every construction worker should be vilified because of the rotten apples in the dark underbelly. We know that those opposite want to take any chance to take a swipe at Victoria’s Big Build – the Big Build that has been building our state for a decade – because they are cutters and we are builders, boosting the economy and creating more than 50,000 jobs. But to protect this we must make sure that it delivers for all Victorians. Our $6.1 billion package as part of the recent 2025–26 state budget will do just that. I encourage Mr Welch to support this bill when we come, hopefully this year, to proceed on the bill.

 Ann-Marie HERMANS (South-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:13): I also rise to stand in support of this motion, and I think it is important to go through some of the points: that this is about the sacking of Mr John Perkovic recently from the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union, the CFMEU, and the apparent failure of regulatory agencies and their concern of ongoing criminal behaviour. I found a particular article incredibly interesting to read in relation to this, and that is the EPIC – Empowering People in Construction – article headed ‘CFMEU corruption: crime, cover-ups and govt complicity (2025)’. This report to me is very honest, it is very raw and it provides a fair amount of detail. What is really concerning is how much criminal activity has been entwined in the workings of the CFMEU, not to mention the bullying and the harassment of women. We only have to look at some of the information and we are just simply horrified. We do hear about it. We have been able to watch reports on the news and on special programs that have investigated this. I do applaud every journalist that has taken the time to honestly investigate and report on the issues that we are seeing with the CFMEU.

I want to add to that concern something that I discovered perhaps about a year ago that really troubled me. A wonderful service, and I am not going to mention its name, that helps young people in difficult circumstances to get employment was doing its job. It was very thrilled when it was able to say to me on my visit – and this is going back quite a while ago now – ‘Hey, it’s just been amazing. We have these young teenage people who don’t have the family networks and supports, who’ve come from very difficult circumstances and maybe have been caught in petty crime, and we’ve been able to get all of them work – you just won’t believe it – where they’re going to be getting paid so well.’ And I said, ‘Oh really? Who’s taken them on?’ It was construction in businesses with the CFMEU. That really concerns me, and I think it should concern every Victorian when our vulnerable young people who have petty criminal histories and no family support services are being plucked from our society and placed into what on the surface should be a great opportunity and a great career or a great job. But when you have criminal activity running a union like the CFMEU and taking place in a way that it is so systemic and embedded, then we have major problems. That is why the third part of this motion expresses concern at ongoing criminal behaviour in some sections of the Victorian construction industry, including and in particular the continuing role of organised crime within and associated with the CFMEU.

People, when they are brave enough, are constantly concerned and feel intimidated. This particular article is very, very enlightening. There are so many things I could read out here that are so worthwhile in understanding the systemic bullying. I think it is something like 68 per cent of women that have experienced harassment. They found that 60 per cent of Big Build contracts – this is through the IBAC probe of 2025 – went to CFMEU-linked firms despite higher bids from competitors. One tender for the Suburban Rail Loop listed union compatibility as the criteria – a dog whistle for kickback-ready contractors. It was noted that when governments fund crooks, they become crooks by proxy.

I think the concerns that people have that this has not been dealt with, that it has not gone to a royal commission, are very founded. It is something that we have been pushing for. If the government wants to honestly convince the public that it is being transparent, that it cares about stamping out genuine criminal activity, then we need to see a real change in the construction industry. We need to know that the criminals are not in unions like the CFMEU.

 Richard WELCH (North-Eastern Metropolitan) (17:17): To sum up, I thank everyone for their contributions today. The first point to make is this is not an attack on unions and the valuable role that they play; in fact quite the opposite. If we did not care about unions, we would not care about the corruption in them so much and the fact that that corruption undermines the important role that they play. That is very, very wrong. It is not an attack on unions. If it is an attack on anyone, it is an attack on the government and their accountability. It was just remarkable to hear so many contributions where the core issue, which is corruption of a major union on government worksites, is not sufficiently concerning for people to actually address the topic and address the issue.

There is no other way to understand that except that you are either embarrassed by it or you are complicit in it. But certainly the one thing that it all has in common is you are not willing to address it. We had Mr Berger say on one hand we have no power, Kennett gave all the powers to Canberra so we have no power to do it. Then he rattled off a list of things that they are supposedly doing where they clearly do have power to do it – the bills, the other things. If the government has the power to do something about it, then do it. But the fact is none of the things you have done and none of the things you are doing are going to address a very specific problem with a very specific organisation. That is the problem. The only conclusion Victorians can draw as they see headline after headline, week after week, is that you do not intend to. And that begs the question: why? Why wouldn’t you want to address endemic corruption on your own worksites? There is no logical answer to that except that you are complicit. Whether you want to argue that you are willingly complicit or accidentally complicit or complicit by negligence, it remains you are complicit.

You are morally responsible. You are the government. You are the only ones who can act. You are the only ones who can stop the bribery, the intimidation, the wrecking of local businesses – you. You have had years to do it. You have absolutely no moral high ground here. You are in the job here of tidying up a mess you have made, but you are not willing to do it; you are not even willing to talk about it. You are not willing to look in the mirror and confront the issue and the situation that you have created. Accountability is required here, and until it occurs Victoria will continue to suffer; workers, good, hardworking union members, will continue to suffer; the soul of this state, which tolerates corruption, will suffer; and we will continue to spiral as a state.

We need to turn this around, and there is only one group, one party, one organisation that can do it, and it is the government. Why won’t you do it? You will not do it because you are conflicted. Maybe you are embarrassed. Maybe there are too many connections. You can only wonder why. But I think any sensible, right-headed Victorian looking at the headlines knows the true answers. It does not need to be said. You can weasel-word around it, you can deflect and you can hide behind the skirts of the union movement – because that is what you are doing, hiding behind their virtue to avoid your accountability.

There is corruption on a Victorian building site that is costing us money. It is costing people’s businesses. It is costing young people their self-esteem. It is costing us dearly and deeply every single day. Then it extends because it is costing us money. It is costing us money because building costs go up, and as building costs go up the cost of living goes up, transport costs go up, food costs go up and housing goes up. This is what happens when you allow a toxin into your society. That toxin does not stay where it is. It does not stay within the boundaries of your worksites. It spreads out across the whole of the state. The only way to get rid of that toxin is to cut it out, and that requires a desire to do so. The government has demonstrated through this motion and through its contributions to this motion that it has no desire to do so, because the first step in solving a problem is to admit you have got one, and you have not done that. I commend this motion.

Council divided on motion: