Bold opening: This piece needs a thorough rewrite that stays faithful to the original while breathing new life into the wording.
Opinion
February 20, 2026 — 7:30pm
I will make this crystal clear: no organiser or official should agree to, or meet with, Mr Gatto or any other industrial mediator or fixer, except in the circumstances explicitly outlined in the policy.
When the CFMEU’s federally appointed administrator, Mark Irving, KC, issued this warning in October 2025, the concern was that Gatto’s contact with the union could open the door to misconduct on building sites and work against the interests of dues-paying union members. The policy in question followed an incident where Zach Smith, viewed as a figure in a future, reforming CFMEU after John Setka, arranged for one of his subordinates to meet Gatto in secret. Smith ultimately stepped down months later from his CFMEU role for personal reasons.
Viewed in this context, the decision by firefighters’ union leader Peter Marshall and plumbers’ union leader Earl Setches to join Gatto for a meal on a yacht last month appears, at best, ill advised.
Beyond his union duties, Setches serves as a “member director” on the board of CBUS’s property arm, representing an appointment by one of the union governors of the industry fund. In response to The Age’s reporting on Thursday, the superannuation fund began a “fit and proper person” assessment of him and Lucy Weber, a CFMEU representative on the CBUS board.
Weber announced her resignation on the same day after it emerged that she had failed to disclose a personal relationship with Smith.
Industry super funds like CBUS hold billions of dollars in what remains a multitrillion-dollar sector. CBUS is the default super fund in many CFMEU members’ enterprise agreements.
The Age argues that holding directors to high standards of probity is essential for the members’ best interests, especially given CBUS’s involvement in CFMEU governance. This marks the second time in 18 months that CBUS has faced questions about directors’ ties to the CFMEU and related issues.
The trade union movement played a central role in forming the superannuation funds we rely on today, with building workers the first to receive award-based super in 1984 from what eventually became CBUS. This history fuels a strong argument that unions should have some influence over fund directors.
But concerns persist about those nominated to fill these posts. When the federal government appointed Irving to administer the CFMEU in 2024, he pushed for the removal of current CBUS member directors. Jason O’Mara resigned, but Irving later re-nominated him; Rita Mallia quit after being dismissed from her CFMEU role; Dave Noonan left after refusing to resign amid allegations of impropriety.
APRA ordered an independent review of O’Mara and the two replacement directors, Weber and CFMEU national president Paddy Crumlin. Deloitte’s review concluded all three were fit and proper for their roles but found governance gaps that prevented a determination on whether the directors had acted in members’ best financial interests regarding CFMEU-related spending on events.
CBUS is not alone in making such payments; AustralianSuper and Hostplus have also faced scrutiny over payments to industrial bodies.
The same review noted the board’s willingness to manage conflicts of interest, which is unfortunate given the current situation with Weber, who has resigned amid apparent conflicts of interest.
Until now, the perceived success of industry funds has been used to resist calls for tighter governance regulation. CBUS has defended its handling of disability insurance and death-benefit claims for thousands of members in this context.
Some commentators point to Graeme Samuel’s calls for more qualified independent directors on industry fund boards, while others advocate for a binding code of conduct and stricter APRA and ASIC oversight of trustees’ spending.
We argue for greater transparency in how industry funds invest member money and stronger remedies for consumers when standards are not met.
CBUS, where an objectively weakened CFMEU remains a nomination force without a genuine members’ voice, illustrates a troubling dynamic.
Institutions like the Governance Institute of Australia have long urged giving superannuation members voting rights over board directors, akin to public-company shareholders. APRA’s fit-and-proper test is a weaker substitute.
Labor has defended the industry-fund model of equal representation for unions and employers, and in opposition blocked attempts by Coalition governments to mandate independent directors.
CBUS chairman Wayne Swan (an apparent independent director) told a 2024 parliamentary inquiry that the model remains a pillar of the sector’s success, arguing that millions paid to CFMEU and other unions for services, including a 40th birthday party for the union in a Melbourne theatre, were commercially justified.
Whether members agree that this arrangement serves their interests is unclear, as they are rarely asked for a meaningful input.
Swan noted that he earned $210,000 per year to chair the fund, though it remains unknown whether members are satisfied with that figure or his performance.
The industry-fund board model, given its growth and central role in many Australians’ savings, is increasingly scrutinized for its governance. CBUS is only one example: it is high time members gain more influence over who manages their money.
Get a weekly dose of viewpoints that challenge, defend, and inform your own. Sign up for our Opinion newsletter.
From our partners
