Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party, Shadow Minister for Youth) | Hansard source

The coalition supports practical reforms that improve the efficiency of our workplace relations system; we support reforms that ensure disputes are resolved quickly; we support reforms that reduce unnecessary bureaucracy; and we support reforms that allow the Fair Work Commission to focus on its core task of resolving workplace disputes fairly and efficiently—because justice delayed is, indeed, justice denied.

When an employee has lost their job, they deserve a timely resolution. When a small business is defending a claim, they deserve certainty and an efficient process; there's no doubt. No-one benefits from a system weighed down by unnecessary delay.

Unfortunately, this bill asks the parliament to support two completely different agendas wrapped up into one piece of legislation. On one hand, it contains sensible practical reforms requested by the Fair Work Commission itself. On the other hand, it contains significant and controversial changes that would allow the Commonwealth to preference businesses with union-covered enterprise agreements when awarding its contracts and grants. These issues are completely unrelated, so they should be considered separately.

It's no secret that Labor and the unions are one and the same, but the government should not be using sensible reforms as a cover to introduce dodgy changes to Commonwealth procurement. The Fair Work Commission has made it abundantly clear that it's facing an unprecedented workload crisis. Applications are projected to increase by more than 70 per cent within just three years. The commission has spoken publicly about the growing pressures on its resources and the need for legislative changes to help it operate more efficiently. The president of the commission himself described the workload as becoming unsustainable.

So, when practical solutions are proposed, they deserve support, and there are a number of provisions in this bill that we on this side of the House will gladly get behind. The first concerns jurisdictional objections. Until the Coles Supply Chain Pty Ltd v Milford decision, the commission would generally move straight into conciliation or mediation when someone lodged a general protections or unlawful termination application. That made sense. The purpose of the commission at that early stage is to help parties resolve disputes quickly and informally. But, following the court decision, the commission has often been forced to determine complex legal questions before it can even begin helping the parties to resolve the dispute. Employers can argue there was no dismissal or that the person was never an employee. The commission must then hold hearings and determine those issues before any conciliation can occur. The result is more legal argument, more cost and more delay. The commission estimates around 600 cases each year are now caught up in this process.

This bill restores the previous approach. If a person alleges they were dismissed unlawfully, the commission can proceed directly to dispute resolution without first determining every jurisdictional question, and those issues can still be determined later, if necessary. That is a practical reform. It reduces unnecessary process without removing anyone's legal rights, and the coalition supports it.

The second reform allows limited delegation of procedural functions to senior commission staff. So, rather than requiring commission members to perform purely administrative tasks, appropriately qualified staff will be able to undertake certain procedural functions in unresolved dismissal matters. Again, this is a sensible, efficient measure. It allows commission members to focus on substantive disputes rather than administrative paperwork. The commission itself sought this flexibility, and we on this side support that too.

The third reform deals with vexatious litigants. Every tribunal and court must have the ability to protect processes from abuse. Where applications are frivolous, vexatious or have no reasonable prospects of success, resources should not be wasted pursuing them indefinitely. This bill allows the commission to dismiss such applications and, in appropriate circumstances, prevent serial applicants from repeatedly lodging substantially similar claims. Importantly, safeguards exist. A full bench must make the order, and the individual must have an opportunity to make submissions. That strikes an appropriate balance between access to justice and protecting the integrity of the system.

The fourth reform allows certain matters to be determined on the papers. So, where parties consent and the commission considers a hearing unnecessary, matters can be resolved through written submissions. That saves time, that saves money and it avoids scheduling hearings where no practical purpose would be served. Again, this is a sensible modernisation that improves efficiency while preserving procedural fairness.

There are also several smaller amendments that are entirely reasonable, and I'll point to those now. There are changes to the National Construction Industry Forum, additional time for the CFMEU administrator to prepare financial statements, travel allowances for members of the Road Transport Advisory Group and streamlined supported bargaining authorisations. These are practical housekeeping measures. None of these provisions are controversial.

But, unfortunately, that's not where the bill ends. Australians need to know this about the Labor Party. This is what they often do—put something that is acceptable and something that is completely not acceptable all into one bill together. That is why we would like them to split the bill. Hidden amongst those sensible reforms in this bill is a completely different policy agenda. I'll explain. It's an agenda that fundamentally changes Commonwealth procurement. It is this part of the bill we are most concerned about.

Currently, the Fair Work Act prevents discrimination against employers based on whether their employees are covered by particular industrial instruments, including enterprise agreements. That principle protects freedom of association. It means businesses compete based on capability, performance and value for money, not whether they have negotiated the government's preferred industrial arrangement. This bill actually changes that. It creates an exemption allowing the Commonwealth to preference businesses whose employees are covered by union covered enterprise agreements. I'll say that again: this bill creates an exemption allowing the Commonwealth—that is, the government—to preference businesses whose employees are covered by union covered enterprise agreements. It permits the government to favour one lawful business over another based solely on the industrial instrument under which it operates—not because it delivers better outcomes, not because it provides better value and not because it has a stronger safety record but because it has the preferred enterprise agreement.

This preference does not stop with the primary contractor. The bill extends throughout the Commonwealth contractual arrangement chain. If company A wins a Commonwealth contract and subcontracts work to company B, company B may also be expected to preference businesses operating under union-covered enterprise agreements. The incentive cascades through the entire supply chain. It has the potential to reshape markets, it has the potential to disadvantage perfectly lawful businesses and it risks creating a procurement system based on industrial ideology rather than merit.

Commonwealth procurement should always be guided by three principles: (1) value for money, (2) capability and (3) compliance with the law—nothing more. Taxpayer dollars should purchase the best possible outcome for Australian taxpayers, not reward businesses simply because they've signed a particular industrial agreement that the Labor government likes. Recent history demonstrates exactly why this matters. The Geoffrey Watson SC report into corruption within the Victorian construction branch of the CFMEU painted a deeply troubling picture. We've seen it on the news. It described an enterprise bargaining system that had become, in its words, 'thoroughly corrupted'. It described a system where access to enterprise agreements became a form of market access, where contractors allegedly paid enormous sums simply to obtain agreements where refusing an agreement could drive a legitimate business out of the market.

The lesson is not that enterprise agreements are inherently improper. Many operate perfectly well. The lesson is that, when commercial opportunity becomes dependent upon obtaining the right enterprise agreement, the risks of coercion, exclusion and corruption increase significantly. That is precisely why governments should not use procurement policy to create artificial incentives for one particular industrial model.

My home state of Queensland provides another warning. Best practice industry conditions sought to embed preferred industrial arrangements into government procurement. The Queensland government concluded the policy contributed to delays and, more importantly, increased costs. Independent Treasury modelling estimated project costs could increase by up to 25 per cent and impose a net economic cost of up to $17 billion. That policy, I'm pleased to say, has now been abolished. Yet this legislation risks the very same inflated taxpayer costs at a Commonwealth level.

It is little wonder that industry groups have raised the alarm. The Housing Industry Association has expressed their concern. The Business Council of Australia, the BCA, has warned public money should go to businesses that can deliver, not businesses with the preferred union agreement of this government. Ai Group has warned these provisions risk undermining freedom of association. Currently, in the Fair Work Act 2009, there are specific statutory protections to join or not join industrial associations like unions. This bill exempts the Commonwealth from this, which is why it is so outrageous. Those on the other side are looking at me like I'm a whiny cow or something. Well, I am whining because what this government is doing is completely and utterly out of order.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has called the proposal a structural shift away from best practice contracting. Master Builders Australia has warned small businesses will be unfairly disadvantaged. Small businesses in my electorate and many electorates around the country will be unfairly disadvantaged. Queensland's deputy premier has described the proposal as a national version of Queensland's former BPIC policy—the so-called CFMEU—there's the word that Labor love—tax!

These are serious concerns. They deserve serious scrutiny. There are also provisions establishing a separate high-income threshold for road transport contractors. The government argues that high operating costs justify a special carve-out, but stakeholder views are mixed and the evidence to back it up remains incomplete. Creating industry specific exceptions to longstanding legislative principles should never occur without careful examination. That too deserves proper scrutiny.

The coalition's position is pretty straightforward on this bill, but, as I said, this Labor government likes to roll some good reform policy in with very, very bad policy. We as a coalition cannot—

See this speech in context