Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) | Hansard source

The problem the amendments address is that part 9 of the bill hands the minister sweeping new powers with no statutory limits, no required consultation and no meaningful parliamentary oversight to determine who can access Commonwealth grants, procurement contracts and funding arrangements across an $830 billion annual budget. That is 26.8 per cent of GDP. It is a record, and this bill enables it to be filtered through an industrial relations test. My amendments would omit this part, retaining the other practical measures of the bill.

Even though the government is not compelled to use these powers and has indicated it does not plan to use them for the construction industry, I am concerned. I am concerned that, by creating new exceptions to the Fair Work Act's prohibition on discrimination, this legislation gives the Commonwealth legal basis to favour one business over another, not on capability, not on compliance, not on price, not on delivery but on the industrial instrument covering its workforce. These powers extend to grants and the procurement of goods and services and flow through Commonwealth contractual chains. A small business that is a third-tier subcontractor on a government funded project could find itself subject to this test without ever dealing directly with the Commonwealth. This bill is explicit about this.

The businesses that are most exposed are small businesses. Most operate under awards, not enterprise agreements, in part because negotiating an agreement and navigating the full complexity of the awards as they are currently written requires resources that many simply do not have. They comply with every legal obligation. Under this bill, there may not be enough.

As I flagged in the second reading debate, the policy framework intended to govern this, the secure Australian jobs code, doesn't exist. Submissions closed in February. There is no draft. On 1 May, five weeks before this bill was introduced, the minister stated that the government had no intention of requiring employers to hold a union-covered enterprise agreement as a condition of Commonwealth construction funding and no intention of replicating Queensland's Best Practice Industry Conditions scheme. But this legislation creates the power to do precisely that.

At best, this bill risks limiting who can deliver government objectives, reducing competition and value for money. It risks locking productive, innovative businesses out of grants and tenders. Queensland's Best Practice Industry Conditions scheme was used as a procurement policy to embed preferred conditions. It was found by its own productivity commission to have reduced construction productivity by nine per cent, increasing costs and reducing housing supply. The government should be listening to this, because they should care that construction productivity is down by nine per cent because of the actions of the government. This matters. We do care about construction productivity, because we can't deliver housing unless we get construction productivity moving.

At worst, this bill risks creating the conditions for the enterprise agreement system to be a vehicle for organised crime. These risks are not hypothetical. The Watson report found that Victoria's enterprise agreement system had been thoroughly corrupted—agreements sold for cash, awarded to criminals, used to punish competitors. Watson estimated that corruption costs Victorian taxpayers $15 billion.

I want to be clear: I support enterprise bargaining—

See this speech in context