Tom French (Moore, Australian Labor Party) | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026. This bill makes practical improvements to the workplace relations framework. It supports the Fair Work Commission to manage its workload, improves supported bargaining, allows Commonwealth procurement to promote secure jobs and fair conditions, and provides better support for truckies and road transport businesses. Some of these reforms are technical, but they are not minor. In workplace relations, procedure counts. It determines whether a worker can access a remedy, whether an employer can get certainty, whether a union can progress bargaining and whether the independent umpire can deal with disputes efficiently.

I come to this debate with a practical view of industrial relations. I was a qualified electrician before I became an industrial lawyer. I represented electricians for the Electrical Trades Union and firefighters for the United Professional Firefighters Union. I've been covered by industrial agreements. I've relied on them, I've enforced them and I've helped negotiate them. That experience gives me a clear view of what is important. Workplace rights must be strong, but they must also be usable. A right buried behind a delay, cost or procedural obstruction is not much comfort to the person who needs it.

The Fair Work Commission is central to this system. Its workload has increased substantially, including through the growth of paid agents, the rise of artificial intelligence in the preparation and filing of materials, and the consequences of the Milford decision, which affected how some general protections and unlawful termination disputes are processed. The commission needs to be fair, but it also needs to be able to move. A system that is too slow is not fair. A system too easily clogged by procedural arguments is not fair. A system that allows hopeless claims to consume time that should be spent on genuine disputes is not fair.

One of the key reforms in this bill concerns jurisdictional objections in general protections dismissal disputes and unlawful termination disputes. At present, where a jurisdictional objection is raised about whether a dismissal or termination actually occurred, the commission may have to determine that issue before it can proceed to conciliation or mediation. I've seen what that kind of procedural fight can do. When I worked as an industrial lawyer for the firefighters union, jurisdictional issues arose in proceedings in the state industrial system. That's not the federal system affected by this bill, but the practical effect is similar. The parties can spend time and money arguing about whether the umpire can deal with the dispute before anyone gets near the substance of the dispute itself.

Sometimes a jurisdictional objection is properly taken. Parties are entitled to run legitimate arguments about jurisdiction. Those arguments can be important, and they should remain available. But when a dispute becomes locked in a preliminary jurisdictional contest, the process can slow down, costs can increase and the focus can shift away from resolving the workplace issue. This bill addresses the unintended consequences of Milford by allowing the Fair Work Commission to move to conciliation or mediation without having to first determine the jurisdictional issues as a preliminary step. That does not remove the jurisdictional argument. It does not stop a party from maintaining its position. It does not prevent the issue being determined later if required. It simply allows the commission to get the parties into a dispute resolution process and test whether the dispute can be resolved.

I just want to wish WA's professional firefighters well in their ongoing pay and conditions dispute with the state government. Firefighters do difficult and dangerous work. They are relied upon by the community in the worst moments of people's lives. Their bargaining campaign is a reminder that industrial relations is about whether the people who protect us are properly valued, properly staffed and properly supported.

This bill also allows the president of the Fair Work Commission to delegate the power to certify that a general protections dispute is unlikely to be resolved by conciliation. Those certificates allow parties to take the next step, including consent arbitration or court proceedings. Where a trained commission staff member has handled the conciliation and dealt directly with the parties, it is practical for that person to issue the certificate. That is not a final determination of rights. It is an administrative step that allows the dispute to progress.

The bill also gives the commission stronger powers to deal with claims that are frivolous, vexatious or have no reasonable prospects of success. Access to justice counts, but access to justice does not mean allowing the commission's processes to be misused. The commission must be available to genuine applicants, but it also has to protect respondents and its own resources from claims that are plainly hopeless or brought for an improper purpose.

The bill also expands the circumstances in which the commission can decide a dispute on the papers without holding a hearing or conducting a conference. Importantly, the final bill requires the consent of the parties before the commission can determine certain contested disputes on the papers. That was an important change following consultation. Efficiency is being improved without removing procedural fairness. Not every dispute requires an oral hearing. Some disputes can be fairly determined on documents or agreed facts. If the parties consent and the commission is satisfied the dispute can properly determine that way, the system should allow it.

The bill also improves supported bargaining. Supported bargaining is particularly important in sectors where workers are lower paid, workforces are fragmented or traditional single-enterprise bargaining is difficult. If the commission has already authorised bargaining for substantially the same group of employees and employers, the law should not force everyone to repeat unnecessary procedural steps.

The next major part of this bill concerns enterprise agreements and Commonwealth procurement. The government has committed to developing a secure Australian jobs code to ensure Commonwealth spending supports secure jobs and fair pay and conditions. Public money should not drive a race to the bottom. It should support decent employment practices, lawful conduct and fair standards. I'm in this place today because of what those opposite did when they had total control of the industrial relations system, and I would like to remind everyone that they would implement Work Choices again if given the chance.

Enterprise agreements that are genuinely agreed and negotiated in good faith are a transparent and effective way of delivering secure jobs and fair conditions to workers. They can also deliver flexibility and productivity for employers. A good enterprise agreement is not just about wages, although wages do count. It can deal with classifications, rosters, allowances, dispute resolution, redundancy, training, travel, accommodation and safety. It gives workers a structured voice and it gives employers certainty about the rules of the workplace. This bill allows government purchasing power to promote fairer wages and more secure jobs through enterprise agreements where it is appropriate to do so. It does not impose an obligation on the Commonwealth to do this in every case. Commonwealth entities will still need to comply with procurement rules, grant guidelines, value-for-money requirements and delivery obligations.

I want to acknowledge the current bargaining being undertaken by the Electrical Trades Union with BHP in the Pilbara, and I wish them well. That bargaining involves workers performing skilled and demanding work in one of the most economically significant regions in the country. Electricians, technicians, maintenance workers and other tradespeople keep critical operations running. The work is complex. The environment is demanding. Their contribution should be reflected in the agreements that cover them. I understand from my own working life what those kinds of rosters mean. During my time as a construction electrician, I worked a four weeks on, one week off roster. From outside the industry, people just see the headline wages. They do not see the cost of being away for long stretches—missed birthdays, pressure placed on partners, strain on children and the difficulty of coming home and trying to fit back into family routines before leaving again.

The research into FIFO mental health has made those issues plain. The Western Australian report into FIFO arrangements found that FIFO workers and their partners are an at-risk group for mental ill health. It also identified the importance of roster design, workplace culture, accommodation, bullying, stigma and support services. That is why bargaining is important. It is not only about the hourly rate. It is about the structure of work. It is about rosters, fatigue management, travel, accommodation, consultation, dispute resolution and safety. It is about whether workers have a real and lawful mechanism to raise issues before they become crises.

The bill also supports the National Construction Industry Forum. The forum is a tripartite body that brings together government, employers and workers to provide advice on work in the building and construction industry. This bill updates the ministerial membership of the forum to reflect the machinery-of-government changes and recognises the strong skills component of its work. That is sensible. You cannot have a serious discussion about construction without discussing skills. Apprenticeships, training quality, workforce shortages and pathways into trades are central to the future of the industry.

The final major area of the bill concerns road transport. The Albanese Labor government is committed to ensuring truckies get a fair go. This bill allows a new road transport industry high-income threshold to be made for contractors in the transport industry. That is necessary because conventional high-income thresholds are not fit for purpose in road transport. A contractor may appear to have a higher income on paper, but the reality is different once fuel, tires, maintenance, insurance, finance, registration, compliance and downtime are all taken into account. Gross income is not the same as take-home income. In road transport, that distinction counts.

The purpose of this reform is to ensure more truckies can access the quick and practical process in the Fair Work Commission to challenge unfair contracts. For many road transport contractors and small transport businesses, unfair contract terms and unfair termination can have serious consequences. A truck is a major capital investment. If a contract is terminated unfairly or unfair terms shift too much risk down the chain, the impact can be immediate and severe. Road transport is essential to the Australian economy. Goods move because truck drivers and transport businesses do the work. The law should reflect the commercial reality they face.

I also note that this bill has been subject to consultation. The department has consulted with state and territory government officials, the Fair Work Commission and key stakeholders, including the ACTU, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Australian Industry Group and the Business Council of Australia. As a result of that consultation, the bill was refined. Party consent is now required before the commission can determine certain contested disputes on the papers. Proposed expanded grounds for dismissing applications were not proceeded with. That is what consultation should do. It should test the drafting, identify the risks and improve the final bill.

The financial impact of this bill is modest, and no additional funding is provided. Measures supporting the more efficient commission processes are expected to have a minor positive impact on the commission and help it respond to increased lodgements.

The common thread through this bill is practical improvement. It helps the Fair Work Commission deal with disputes more efficiently. It supports enterprise bargaining and supported bargaining. It allows Commonwealth purchasing power to promote fairer wages and secure jobs where appropriate. It recognises the real economics of road transport. It supports tripartite consultation in construction. A fair workplace relations system must protect workers, give employers certainty, support bargaining and equip the independent umpire to resolve disputes properly.

Those opposite no doubt say this bill is about favouring unions, and that is the usual line. It misses the point entirely. This bill is not about punishing businesses; it is about recognising businesses that do the right thing. If an employer sits down with its workforce, bargains in good faith, reaches a genuine enterprise agreement, pays fair wages, provides secure conditions and gives workers a voice, why should the Commonwealth be prevented from taking that into account? The Liberal Party says it supports business, but too often what it supports is the lowest common denominator. It should not be controversial to say that public money should support employers who bargain properly, comply with the law and provide decent jobs. The businesses that do the right thing should not be undercut by competitors whose business models rely on minimum standards, insecure work and avoiding bargaining wherever possible.

This is where the opposition's arguments fall apart. They say they are standing up for business, but, in opposing this bill, they are standing against the businesses that have done the work to negotiate proper agreements with their employees. They are standing against employers who value certainty. They are standing against employers who understand that good wages, proper consultation and safe systems of work are not obstacles to productivity but part of productivity. They are standing against the small transport businesses and owner-drivers who need a fairer threshold because gross income is not the same as take-home income. They are standing against a more efficient Fair Work Commission, even though delay hurts workers and employers alike.

This bill does not ask employers to do anything unreasonable. It says that, where employers bargain properly, where they provide secure jobs and fair conditions and where they contribute more to a cooperative workplace relations system, that should be recognised. That is not anti-business; that is pro-business. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context