‘Without you the union is gone’: Mick Gatto’s secret support for John Setka

The striking feature was the split between public condemnation and private backing. Setka faced pressure to resign, but he was not isolated. Mick Gatto supported him during the scandal, and Labor-linked figures continued contacting him. Their messages helped Setka maintain confidence while senior union and political figures criticised him.

Gatto was the most prominent private supporter. Setka texted him angrily about “squareheads” and people who did not understand mateship. Victorian MP Bronwyn Halfpenny wrote that Setka was a great comrade and hoped to see him soon. The article also says female federal and state Labor politicians and union figures sent messages after Albanese moved to remove him from the party.

This support mattered because Setka remained defiant rather than resigning immediately. The article presents a leader protected by member loyalty, personal networks and political relationships. It shows how public pressure can be weakened when influential allies continue offering private reassurance, even during a domestic violence scandal.

John Setka was the boss of Australia’s construction union, a powerful CFMEU division, and a veteran organiser known for confrontation. The article describes him leading tens of thousands of protesters and clashing with political and union figures. Mick Gatto was described as Setka’s gangland friend, someone Setka trusted when hostile publicity and criminal allegations threatened him.

Their relationship mattered because Gatto understood how to navigate bad press and allegations, according to the article. Setka texted him during the 2019 domestic violence scandal. He complained about critics, defended his idea of mateship and rejected people trying to control whom he could see or speak to. Gatto therefore served as a private source of advice and solidarity.

The connection also revealed Setka’s wider network. He was not relying only on formal union structures. Personal alliances, male comrades and Labor-linked supporters gave him encouragement behind the scenes. That network helped him remain defiant while public figures argued that he had damaged the movement’s reputation.

CFMEU stands for the Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union. The source specifically identifies Setka’s organisation as Australia’s construction union and a division of the CFMEU. In practical terms, the union represents workers in major industrial sectors, with construction at the centre of this story. Its leader therefore had influence beyond one workplace.

The article shows that influence through Setka’s public role. He had led tens of thousands of protesters through Melbourne’s central business district. The CFMEU’s construction division was also linked to the wider union movement, so Setka’s conduct became a reputational issue for other unions. The ACTU, teachers, nurses and truck-driver unions all entered the public debate.

The source does not detail the CFMEU’s full structure, membership or current activities. It does show that the organisation was politically significant. Its leader could confront governments, mobilise workers and attract intense scrutiny. That combination made the scandal important to both construction workers and the broader Labor-aligned union movement.

The article does not give the union’s membership total, budget or exact national size. It does show substantial public reach. Setka had led tens of thousands of chanting protesters through Melbourne’s CBD, while the construction union was described as Australia’s most powerful union leadership post. That scale made his position politically consequential.

His influence worked through mobilisation and relationships. Protesters demonstrated the union’s ability to put people into the streets. Setka’s conduct also drew responses from the ACTU, major unions, Anthony Albanese and Daniel Andrews. At the same time, private messages from Labor politicians and union figures showed that he retained allies inside political and industrial networks.

The article therefore presents influence as both public and private. A construction leader could shape industrial pressure, attract media attention and become a problem for Labor. Yet the source does not quantify how many members Setka controlled or precisely how much formal power he held. It shows influence through actions, reactions and continued support.

The case rested on evidence of repeated harassment, intimidation and abusive communication. A former female judicial officer, who was friends with Emma Walters, gave a sworn statement saying Setka’s anger had left Walters extremely distressed. The article also says police analysed Setka’s phone and found a concentrated pattern of calls and messages.

On one evening, Setka reportedly called Walters 25 times and sent 45 texts. The messages called her degrading and threatening names, including “weak f---en piece of shit” and “treacherous Aussie f---en c---”. The case became front-page news in The Age. Leaked comments about anti-domestic violence campaigner Rosie Batty intensified the backlash.

The scandal harmed the union movement’s reputation because Setka was its prominent construction leader. Sally McManus said no one was bigger than the movement and that Setka had damaged working people’s wider cause. Major unions and Labor leaders agreed. The allegations made the movement answer for the conduct of one of its most powerful figures.

The pressure campaign was broad. ACTU secretary Sally McManus publicly called for Setka to resign and said no one was bigger than the movement. Unions representing teachers, nurses and truck drivers agreed. Senior Labor figures Anthony Albanese and Victorian premier Daniel Andrews also criticised him. The scandal became a public test of whether Setka could remain in office.

Setka did not simply disappear from leadership. He continued sending angry messages, rejecting critics and defending his independence. Albanese moved to turf him from the Labor Party, but the article says Setka’s phone then lit up with supportive messages from female federal and state Labor politicians and union figures. Bronwyn Halfpenny was among those who encouraged him.

The article’s central consequence is survival under pressure. Public condemnation damaged Setka’s standing and the wider movement’s reputation, but it did not immediately end his leadership. His elected position, union allies and private political relationships gave him room to resist. The source does not state the final legal or leadership outcome.

Election gives a union leader a separate source of authority from political parties or other unions. McManus acknowledged that Setka was elected by his members, even while arguing that he had to consider working people and the wider movement. That distinction explains how he could face condemnation without automatically losing office.

Setka also had organisational and personal power. He led a union capable of mobilising tens of thousands of protesters. He had Gatto as a trusted adviser and received supportive messages from Labor-linked women and union figures. These relationships created a protective network. They did not erase the allegations, but they gave Setka confidence and allies while critics demanded resignation.

The article presents survival as a contest between formal accountability and internal loyalty. Other unions, Labor figures and public opinion could condemn him, but they did not directly control his members’ decision. The longer-term result is not stated. The case suggests that removing an elected leader requires more than public outrage when supporters remain organised and loyal.