David Batt (Hinkler, Liberal National Party) | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026. The coalition supports practical reforms that help the Fair Work Commission deal with its workload, but here we go again: this Labor government is presenting a rushed and convoluted bill—a bill that should be split. We say, 'Pass the Fair Work Commission reforms and separately scrutinise the procurement bargaining provisions.' This is, to be frank, a sneaky move to aid union mates, and it will structurally shift contracting away from best-practice arrangements to inefficient, union-friendly arrangements.

This Labor government should not give itself the ability to discriminate against businesses that don't have union endorsed arrangements. This isn't just a concern of those on this side of the House; it is exactly what has been made very clear by industry, including the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. They're not alone, either. Take the Business Council of Australia. They rightly point out that public money should go to businesses that can deliver, not businesses that have signed the right union agreement. The problem here is that a single Commonwealth project could impose these conditions on every business in its supply chain. The consequences would ripple through entire industries. Justice delayed is justice denied. This Labor government should not use the sensible reforms within the Fair Work Commission as cover for passing unrelated procurement changes. Where is the fair go? Commonwealth procurement should be based on value for money, capability and compliance with the law, not on whether a business has the preferred industrial instrument.

We've all read the newspapers and seen the TV news. The CFMEU are on the nose big time in my home state of Queensland and in Victoria. Now, thanks to this Labor government rolling out the welcome mat and getting the floodgates wide open, they're on the march to Canberra. Let's keep the spotlight on Queensland. Deputy Premier Jarrod Bleijie is on the record correctly outlining exactly how the Labor government is trying to revive Queensland's most controversial construction policy on a national scale. This, the Deputy Premier has declared, is jeopardising the state's 2032 Olympic Games delivery. In a letter to the federal minister, Mr Bleijie said that Queensland would not back proposed workplace law changes that nationalise the former Best Practice Industry Conditions—which he called BPIC—policy, dubbed the 'CFMEU tax.' Let me acknowledge the Queensland Major Contractors Association. They share our view that the wording of the legislation before us is eerily similar to that now defunct BPIC policy. These laws risk the rise of BPIC 2.0 and, combined with the proposed secure Australia jobs code, could make union negotiated enterprise agreements a de facto requirement for contractors seeking federally funded work.

We've all seen what happens when procurement policy is used to advantage union controlled arrangements. It risks higher costs for taxpayers, reduced competition and a pay-to-play culture that entrenches corruption and shuts out lawful businesses. The procurement provisions risk pushing union covered enterprise agreements through Commonwealth contracting and down supply chains. It's so easy to get a case of deja vu in this place—rushed bills and attempts to cover up the details, where the devil lies. Throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. Labor is all about jobs for unions, and now the march to Canberra is on.

The bill before us has two main points: changes to the Fair Work Commission and changes relating to enterprise agreements in Commonwealth procurement. It's a 'tick, tick, tick' for jurisdictional objections, delegation of powers to staff, dismissing applications and vexatious litigants, and determining matters on the papers without holding a conference or hearing. These reforms are practical and should be supported. The problem is that the government has attached unrelated and controversial procurement-bargaining provisions to this bill as well. I can't see how forcing employers and their employees to strike deals with unions to commercially deal with this government makes any sense. It's not fair, and it's not practical.

I refer to the Watson report, Rotting from the top. It's a report by Geoffrey Watson SC into corruption and misconduct in the CFMEU's Victorian construction branch. The report became public because it was tendered to the Queensland Commission of Inquiry into the CFMEU. Watson found the enterprise agreement system in Victorian construction has been thoroughly corrupted, describing it as old-fashioned, pay-to-play corruption. Watson found there was no genuine bargaining. A CFMEU official told a contracting executive: 'There is no bargaining. No, nothing will be changed in this agreement.' Watson found EBAs were awarded corruptly in return for cash to friends of union officials and to known criminals.

Labour hire EBAs were said to have been sold for up to $1 million. Watson found the CFMEU punished enemies by refusing EBAs with no reasons given and no avenue for review, and that denial of an agreement can drive a decent contractor out of a business. The lesson is not that enterprise agreements are inherently improper; the lesson is that, where market access depends on obtaining the right union covered agreement, there is a real risk of coercion, exclusion, inflated costs and corruption. That is why Commonwealth procurement should not be used to create incentives for union covered enterprise agreements unless there is a clear, transparent and evidence-based connection to value for money, delivery capability, lawful compliance and productivity.

The Queensland best practice industry conditions, or BPIC, experience is a useful warning. BPIC used procurement policy to embed preferred industrial conditions into major government funded construction projects. The Queensland government has since said that BPIC contributed to project delays and cost increases. It was paused in November 2024 and permanently abolished through the Queensland procurement policy in 2026. Independent Queensland Treasury modelling cited by the Queensland government estimates BPICs were likely to increase project costs by up to 25 per cent and create a net economic cost of up to $17.1 billion over the period of 2024 to 2030. This bill creates a similar policy risk. It would allow enterprise agreement coverage, including union covered enterprise agreements, to influence access to Commonwealth procurement and grants without requiring a demonstrated link to value for money, capability, delivery or compliance. I must note there are reasonable amendments in this bill to help Fair Work operate more smoothly: changing who sits on the National Construction Industry Forum, or NCIF, from the industry minister to the minister responsible for the construction industry; adding the minister responsible for skills to the NCIF; giving more time for the administrator of the CFMEU to prepare financial statements; providing a travel allowance for members of the Road Transport Advisory Group; and creating a faster process for obtaining a new supported bargaining authorisation where the parties already have an existing supported bargaining agreement. All of these amendments do make sense. But a bill like this, when presented, like it has been, with too many flags—we cannot support it as it is. It needs to be split and properly scrutinised.

The peak building and construction bodies agree. They say that, given the purchasing power of the Commonwealth government, it should act as a model client in this matter and seek to uphold freedom of association—not lessen it. The bill would bring about a fundamental change to Australian workplace law and should not proceed through the parliament without the appropriate levels of scrutiny.

Ultimately, the provisions that are really concerning are those which allow Commonwealth procurement and contracting processes to preference employers with union-covered enterprise agreements. It will limit freedom of association and conflict with the central procurement principle of value for money. We simply cannot support a move that turns Commonwealth procurement into a mechanism for pushing union-covered enterprise agreements through government contracts and down supply chains.

We support the Fair Work Commission reforms but do not support the enterprise bargaining procurement changes. We call on the government to separate the two from the bill, and we'll support the Fair Work changes alone. If the government does not do this, we cannot support this bill as unamended.

See this speech in context