Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

The Housing Industry Association's executive director for compliance and workplace relations, Stuart Collins, has some advice for this Labor government. He said:

This bill—

the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026—

is being sold as a modest administrative tidy-up of the Fair Work Commission. It is not.

He's right. Mr Collins said:

It contains wide-ranging reforms with significant implications for the residential construction industry, procurement frameworks, workforce costs and the capacity of builders to deliver the homes Australians need.

There's a lot in that sentence, and there are a lot of construction companies going out backwards thanks to the policies of this failed Labor government. What our small-business sector does not need right now is more onerous costs and compliance. On the capacity of builders to deliver the homes Australians need, how many homes was it that this Labor government said they were going to build? Was it a million? Then they changed the figure. But, on their watch, they've built hardly a home.

Mr Collins added this:

The Federal Government is making a bad habit of tabling substantial workplace relations reforms with no notice, no industry engagement and no consideration of cumulative impact.

This is particularly concerning given the large number of legislative reviews currently underway that will impose future workplace relations reforms.

HIA's immediate concerns with this Bill are numerous.

But it's not just the HIA; it is so many other stakeholders besides. And yet this government just want to ram onerous legislation that is going to make it so much more difficult, particularly in the small-business sector, through the House of Representatives because they can and because they have the majority. They think that that mandate gives them permission to ride roughshod over stakeholders who happen to employ a lot of Australians and are sick to the back teeth of compliance and costs and regulation and union activity on their worksites and in their workplaces.

This is the modern Australia. This is Australia in 2026. This is the Australia governed by this Australian Labor Party, which has no modicum of care for small business or for getting out of the way and out of the road to make sure that small business can succeed and prosper. This is the Australian Labor Party that has overseen a cost-of-living crisis and has done nothing to fix it, bar bringing in legislation which just makes it more difficult for more people more often.

The government would do well to go back to the drawing board, look at this legislation and review it. And yet there are no Labor speakers on this bill. Labor members so quickly and readily want to talk about unionising and making sure their unions get their fair share, but, when it comes to small business, to the construction sector and to the transport sector, they are nowhere to be seen defending their shoddy legislation.

Aaron Violi (Casey, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for the Digital Economy) | Link to this | Hansard source

I congratulate the member for Riverina. As always, that was a fine contribution to an important debate. We heard a discussion in this House earlier about artificial intelligence and, specifically, data centres. The reality is that, more and more in this House, we are going to see conversations, debate and legislation about the impacts of artificial intelligence on our community, organisations and sectors. AI and the discussion on artificial intelligence will impact everything and everyone. So, as bills relating to AI come to the House, it is important that, where we can, we speak in a bipartisan way with one voice to give the community and the private sector—and the public sector and organisations—confidence and certainty about how we will approach legislation and how we will approach artificial intelligence.

It is so disappointing that, like so many bills from this government, this bill, the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026, contains measures that have no connection and no relationship with each other at all. One measure is around artificial intelligence, and specifically how the Fair Work Commission has seen a significant increase in applications, and also in the length of applications, because applicants have been able to use artificial intelligence to write submissions so easily and in such detail. That is a genuine concern and a genuine issue that needs to be addressed and is being addressed by this legislation. And it is legislation, to give the Fair Work Commission the support they need, that the coalition supports.

But, like so many pieces of legislation that were debating this week and that we have debated in the four years that I've been a member of this House, this government seeks to play wedge politics and has included a provision in the bill that is not related to AI but furthers their agenda and is so egregious that they know the coalition cannot support it. That is what they have done with this piece of legislation. They have added procurement requirements for the Public Service. One of the biggest drivers of opportunity in our country is procurement of government services, and this bill provides for unions and the union movement through enterprise bargaining agreements to get special treatment when it comes to procurement. I will touch on how egregious that is later in this speech, but, if you want to see how bad it is when you have unions controlling procurement, come and visit Victoria and see the $15 billion that has been rorted from taxpayers by the CFMEU. We have a premier, Jacinta Allan, who does not even want to investigate that $15 billion. That number, $15 billion of taxpayer money rorted and wasted in Victoria with the premier that won't look at it, will follow that premier to the election in November. It will follow every member of the Labor Party at a state and federal level in Victoria because they refuse to investigate and lift the lid on that $15 billion of taxpayer money that has been rorted out of the system.

To make it so typical of this prime minister—this is a prime minister that always says one thing and does another when it comes to wedging. Let me quote the Prime Minister in his very first press conference as Prime Minister on 22 May 2022:

I look forward to leading a Government that makes Australians proud. A Government that doesn't seek to divide, that doesn't seek to have wedges, but seeks to bring people together for our common interest and our common purpose.

This is another example of this prime minister saying one thing before an election or when he was just elected and delivering the complete opposite afterwards. It is no wonder that the Australian people have worked this prime minister out. It is literally harder to find a quote from the Prime Minister that is consistent with his actions today. I've not been able to find one thing where this prime minister and his actions today have been consistent with what he has said previously. That legacy will haunt this prime minister to the next election. We look at these examples that we're dealing with. Governments have choices.

We support the Fair Work Commission part of this. But, when it comes to procurement, that is one of the largest levers of opportunity government has, if not the largest—directing the public service and directing government bodies in how they spend taxpayer money to procure services for the taxpayer. They should always make sure that value for money for the taxpayer is first there. But the other opportunity they have is that they can choose to support their union mates or they can choose to support small businesses. They can support Australian businesses by putting requirements into that legislation that they're doing now to support Australian businesses and small businesses, but this government chose to support unions and their union mates over the small businesses of this country. I'm proud to represent a community where small business is at the heart of our community. It is at the heart of everything that we do in Casey. It supports our sporting clubs, our volunteer groups and our community groups, and we're here to be the voice of our small businesses.

I want to read a letter from Candice, who is a small-business owner in my community. She directed this to the Prime Minister. It's so important that her words are heard today, and her words represent so many small businesses across the country. She says: 'Dear Prime Minister, I am writing not as an economist or politician but as a fourth-generation small-business owner who is becoming increasingly concerned about the future of Australian family businesses. For generations, our jewellery business has proudly served our community, employed local people and contributed to the Australian economy.

Today, however, we are struggling under the weight of rising costs, increasing wages, soaring utility bills, insurance premiums, rent and countless other expenses that continue to grow while consumer spending slows. Small-business owners are resilient people, but many of us are reaching breaking point. We hear a lot about cost-of-living pressures on households, but where is the support for the people who provide jobs and keep our local community alive? Where is the assistance for small businesses trying to survive? Where is the recognition that behind every small business is a family carrying enormous burdens and responsibilities? And where is the support for the mental health of business owners who lie awake at night wondering how they will pay suppliers, cover wages and provide security, not only for their own families but for the families of their employees as well? Small business owners don't clock off. We carry the responsibility every day. We celebrate our staff's successes, worry about their livelihoods and often put ourselves last to ensure everyone else gets paid. Yet many of us feel forgotten. We are not asking for handouts. We are asking for understanding, practical assistance and policies that recognise the essential role small businesses play in Australia's economy and communities.

Australian small businesses are hurting. Many are on their knees. Rising living costs, increased operating expenses and mounting pressures are pushing longstanding family businesses to the brink. If fourth-generation businesses that have survived wars, recessions and countless challenges are now questioning whether they can continue, surely something is wrong. Please don't let small businesses become an afterthought. We need genuine support, meaningful conversations and a government that understands that, when small businesses suffer, entire communities suffer with them. Australia was built on hard work, aspiration and family enterprise. We simply ask that those values are not forgotten.

Yours sincerely, Candice.'

Candice, it was a privilege and an honour to read your words into the Hansard so that all Australians could hear your story. You said it perfectly. I couldn't have said it better myself. The coalition sees you. We hear you. We support small business. We know that strong small businesses means that families are strong, communities are strong and our country is strong. That's why, as a coalition, we want to support small business, not just with words but with policies and actions.

We want to allow any business with a turnover of less than $10 million to immediately deduct assets of up to $50,000 on a permanent basis, supporting businesses to invest. This is going to help tradies to buy tools, farmers to buy equipment, cafes to upgrade kitchens and small businesses—like Candice's—to invest with confidence. We're going to rewrite and simplify the legislative rulebook, including the Corporations Act, the tax act, the competition act, the National Construction Code and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. It's so important. You shouldn't have to need a lawyer to run a small business and understand legislation. A coalition government will impose new responsibilities on regulators by law. We will require regulators to act in a way that encourages competition, nurtures investment, increases productivity, boosts wages and grows the economy. We will axe Labor's toxic taxes—taxes on ambition and every small business in my community of Casey and across the country.

We will consult on a small business act. We are proposing at least four key pillars. Firstly, there will be a single definition; all Commonwealth law will refer to one definition of a small business. This will provide simplicity for business owners so they can understand straightaway whether they will be impacted by legislative changes. Then there will be a right to be paid. Cash is king. Cash flow is the lifeblood of a business. It's not the profit and loss sheet that kills a business. It's the cash balance, and cash is king. We will have a legal maximum payment term to small business from government and big business to make sure that you get paid and you get paid as soon as possible. We will also have a right to be heard. As appropriate, each new law should require a small-business regulatory impact statement, and there should be pathways for feedback to the RBA, ASIC, the ATO and Fair Work so that small-business voices can be heard. Lastly, we will have a right to bid. There will be new and expanded minimum requirements for government procurement that must come from small business.

This is the choice. This bill, in many ways, sums up the difference between the coalition and the Liberal Party, and the Labor Party and the government. We want to back small business. We want to give you the opportunity to benefit from government contracts. We want to make less red tape for you. We want to get out of your way and allow you to thrive.

But what does this government choose to do? This government chooses to write legislation to back the CFMEU and the unions, and the scary part is that it's about to get worse. Andrew McKellar, the chief executive of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, wrote yesterday in the Australian about the 2018 CFMEU manifesto titled Goodbye neoliberalism. It had 18 sweeping recommendations for reshaping Australia's economy.

The scary part about this CFMEU wish list of Goodbye neoliberalism is that at least half of that agenda has been implemented by the Albanese Labor government, the same Labor government that is happy to back the CFMEU and Jacinta Allan in Victoria and does not even want to look into the $15 billion of taxpayer money that was rorted by the CFMEU. It refuses to look into where that money went. The scary part for Australians is that they're halfway through. They're nine down; there are nine to go. Conveniently for them, that report was scrubbed off the CFMEU website.

The coalition will always back Australians. We'll always back small businesses, just as they deserve.

Simon Kennedy (Cook, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) | Link to this | Hansard source

This bill, the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026, asks parliament to consider two very different propositions cynically tied together. The first is sensible. It deals with the workload facing the Fair Work Commission. They are under water and we need to help them. We fully support the government in this aim. This seeks to make the system faster, more practical and less bogged down in process. Justice delayed is justice not done. Sadly, right now, people are not getting their cases heard before the Fair Work Commission, and we need to rectify this. When a worker or an employer is caught in a workplace dispute, delay isn't an administrative inconvenience; it's stressful, costly and deeply personal and it can often lead to unjust outcomes.

The second proposition is very, very different. It's going to create a framework that will allow the Commonwealth, the federal government, to preference businesses in procurement because of some random industrial instrument they have. This is a major change and deserves a lot of scrutiny. It shouldn't be bundled together with this Fair Work Commission reform. This is why the position should be very straightforward. Let's help the Fair Work Commission and, having done that, let's have a real, honest debate about what we should do about this second element of the bill.

In my electorate of Cook, this isn't an abstract debate. We have thousands of small and medium businesses across San Souci, Gymea, Jannali, Caringbah, Miranda, Sutherland, Kirrawee, Taren Point and the surrounding suburbs. We've got builders, electricians, plumbers, civil contractors, family retailers, professional service firms, transport operators, suppliers and subcontractors. Small and medium enterprises employee 70 per cent of Australia, and in Cook it's even higher than that.

I've got businesses like Shire Pool Care, Little's cafe, Loftus Pies and AP Performers. These businesses don't have large legal departments. They don't have endless time to navigate industrial complexity. They're already dealing with higher power prices, higher insurance, higher rents, higher material costs and higher inflation under this government. All they want is for rules to be fair, clear and workable so they can go about their business, serving their community and doing it in a professional way. They want to compete on the quality of their work, their reliability, their price and their ability to deliver.

Instead, we've got a government that's turned procurement into a system where they can rig procurements if you have the right industrial instrument. It's not just punishing small businesses; there are businesses like Amazon Australia—I was just speaking to them in my office earlier today—and AWS building the data centres of tomorrow.

Right now they choose not to use collective bargaining industrial instruments because they want to bring in the best and brightest. They want to be able to move them around the world. We're saying we're not going to preference Amazon in government procurements. We'll go and find some of the Labor Party's mates who've got the right industrial instrument and get them to build a data centre. AWS may have the best prices and the absolute best technology to be building the best data centres of tomorrow, but, because they don't have this government's preferred collective bargaining agreement, we're going to give it to somebody else. This is absolutely ludicrous, and it needs proper debate. To tie this to the Fair Work Commission, which is absolutely denying justice to people by delaying their cases, is cynical. We should fix it and split apart this bill.

The Fair Work Commission amendments in the bill are largely practical. The commission has been under serious workload pressure. Applications have surged, cases are taking longer, and the system's being placed under strain. We can't ignore this, and a workplace tribunal that cannot deal with matters efficiently does not serve workers, employers or the broader economy. For many people, the early dispute resolution stage is the best chance of resolving a matter quickly, and that's in the best interests of both the business and the worker. We're on the side of helping both the businesses and the workers. It's meant to be practical, it's meant to be quick and it's meant to avoid drawn-out, costly delays and often litigation. If these parties can sit down early, understand each other's position and reach a fair settlement, that's the best outcome for the business, the best outcome for the worker and the best outcome for society. This bill would allow the commission to get on with that early dispute resolution process without first having to resolve every threshold argument. Those questions can still be dealt with later, if they need to be, but they should not automatically stop the commission from trying to help the parties resolve the dispute.

For the small and medium businesses in Cook and the more than 70 per cent of hardworking employees of those small and medium enterprises, these changes matter. A local cafe in Oyster Bay, a builder in Caringbah, a mechanic in Kurnell or a medical practice in Miranda can't afford to have a workplace dispute drag on unnecessarily. Equally, a worker who believes they've been unfairly treated shouldn't have to wait months and months for the system to move. These people might be struggling to make rent—the increased cost of rent that's gone up since these new budgetary changes. Justice delayed is justice denied, and this principle applies to both sides—both employees and employers. So we will support where this bill helps the Fair Work Commission deal with these matters more quickly.

But the government has chosen to attach something else. These procurement bargaining powers provisions aren't administrative. These go to the heart of how the Commonwealth government may operate. Again, we've got a government choosing their preferred industrial relations instrument over the substance of what the procurement is trying to do. Should we be building the data centres of tomorrow, the AI of tomorrow, Australia's competitive advantage, just because they've dealt with the right unions, or do we want the best technology for Australian businesses to use AI to harness that productivity? Our productivity is dropping through the floor. It's been hit and has a crater in it. We need to be procuring from the best and brightest.

Commonwealth procurements should be based on value for money, capability, compliance with the law, safety, quality and integrity. Taxpayers need to get the best outcomes for their dollars, and they're not. That's one of the reasons this side of politics is having to increase taxes so strongly. It's why we have the highest taxing budget of all time. Income has never been taxed more strongly than it is right now under this government. And the only time it's going to be taxed more than it is right now is next year, and the only time after next year is the year after and all the way to 2030. Thanks to their bracket creep tax, it's going to get worse.

What we should be doing is reducing government spending, and one of the ways to do that is to have a procurement process that focuses on outcomes, cost and quality, not a preferred industrial relations instrument. The businesses of Australia should understand this. What we are doing here today is going to add cost to the Australian budget, which means this government will tax the businesses out there watching this more. You will be paying more to find their preferred suppliers who use their preferred union mates and supplying those industrial instruments. That is what this legislation will do.

There are over 23,000 businesses in Cook. Most of them are small and medium sized. Many operate under awards; many pay above award rates. Many have flexible arrangements for their staff and their businesses because it suits their staff better. Many don't have the enterprise agreement because it's not necessary or practical for them and often not in the employee's best interest. This doesn't make them bad employees; it doesn't make them bad employers. It doesn't mean they're less capable, and it doesn't mean they should be excluded from government work. A procurement system that says, 'You may be lawful, you may be capable, you may be the best person for the job, and you may be the best person for the Australian people,' and then says to them, 'You don't have the preferred employer agreement, and, therefore, we're not going to give you that job,' is not fair. Not only is it not fair, it doesn't make economic sense, and it's narrowing competition, increases costs and means this government will tax hardworking Australians more.

When the costs rise on the Commonwealth funded projects, taxpayers pay, businesses pay and employees pay in higher tax take, and that is what we are living right now. We are in this cost-of-living crisis, Australians are paying more for everyday goods to other firms—groceries, energy, insurance, rent and mortgages—but you're also paying more to your government. Australians are paying more than they have ever. Income tax has never been taxed higher as a percentage of GDP than now. Company and business income tax has never been taxed higher as a percentage of GDP than now, and it's forecast to go higher as soon as they ram through the Labor-Greens deal to tax Australians more.

In Cook, these people know what happens when government gets infrastructure wrong. In Cook, we see roads under pressure; we see local facilities stretched; we see a lack of sporting fields; we see overdevelopment with no new schools; we see no new roads, no new metros and no new light rail; we see projects delayed and made more expensive; and we see housing supply not being addressed. We want the roads, schools and services to keep up. Cook was one of the few local councils in Sydney that exceeded its housing targets last term, but we had no new infrastructure to show for it—lots of new houses, no new schools, no new roads, no new metros and no new light rails, but we exceeded our housing targets. How is that fair?

There is also much more broad concern about competition in the Australian economy. We need more competition, not less. We need procurements that encourage more people to compete, not fewer. We need to make it easier for capable businesses to participate in government work, not harder. We must open the doors for local firms, not create another barrier that favours those with big resources and big industrial arrangements that are preferred by this government.

The construction sector is a clear example. Across the Sutherland Shire, people understand the importance of tradies and contractors. These are the people who are building our homes. These are the people who maintain our schools, improve our roads and fix things. Many of them are small businesses; many of them are family businesses. Many of them started with one ute, one apprentice and years of hard work. These businesses should not be told that Commonwealth work is effectively out of reach for them unless they adopt this government's preferred industrial models. This is not pro worker, it's not pro small business, and, I'll tell you what, it's definitely not pro taxpayer.

It is particularly concerning because, once these procurement settings are created, they flow down supply chains. Let me explain what I mean. A Commonwealth contract may be awarded to a head contractor—maybe the M6 that the state Labor government's awarded, which is now closed because they can't complete the project—but the conditions they sign with that head contractor affect the subcontractors and the subbies to the subbies. It flows all the way down the chain. So, while a local business may not be contracting directly with the Commonwealth, if they're out there subcontracted to someone who does have that head contract with the Commonwealth, they can still be caught by the practical consequences of these rules.

To all the businesses out there—all the tradies in Cook who are listening to this—even if you don't have the contract with the Commonwealth, if your head contractor or the contractor above your contractor does, you may get caught up in this and be excluded from providing work underneath Commonwealth funded projects. This is how a policy that looks technical in Canberra can land directly on a small business in Taren Point, Kirrawee, Como or Oyster Bay.

If this government believes it's justified, it should make this case openly and have the debate about this bill. Don't cynically tie it to what is actually a good piece of legislation about the Fair Work Commission. Let's get that bill passed and let's have an honest and open debate. This is trickery. This is beltway-bandit politics in Canberra to trick the Australian small businesses that they are hoping are not watching. Well, we are going to hold them to account for this. The government believes it's justified—well, make the case openly. Let's pull this legislation apart and have a debate.

The coalition won't oppose practical reform. We will say yes to good legislation and we will say yes to half of this. What we are saying is don't bundle good reform with cynical reform that's going to hurt small businesses, that's going to hurt the tradies in my electorate, that's going to hurt the small businesses in my electorate and that's going to hurt the taxpayers in my electorate, who are going to have to pay more for your preferred cynical industrial arrangements.

Ben Small (Forrest, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Electoral Matters) | Link to this | Hansard source

'Beltway banditry', as the member for Cook describes, is the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026. Let's strap in and continue to examine exactly what is going on here. It sounds innocuous enough, 'building cooperative workplaces'. On this side of the chamber, we believe in that. We believe that employees and employers should be empowered to come to an arrangement at their workplace that delivers value for both parties. However, what this bill seeks to do, in a sneaky and underhanded way, is to require the Commonwealth to prefer its procurement to those contractors and suppliers who have union based agreements. If that was argument they wanted to make, they could have made it before the election. But this just continues a pattern that we see of a government that does one thing before the election and then rams through some 'wedge-islation' later—and from a prime minister who promised he was going to end 'wedge-islation' because he cited the Australian people as having combat fatigue. Well, here we go again.

So why is it a problem? The 2022-23 October budget, the first of the Albanese government, included a buy Australian plan committed to establishing the so-called secure jobs code. That, ostensibly, was to prioritise secure work in government contracts and ensure that government purchasing power is used to support businesses that engage in lawful, fair, equitable, ethical and sustainable practices. So the fluffy-sounding, nice things that we can all agree to can continue. The consultation paper invited comment on whether that so-called secure jobs code could require contracting entities to demonstrate, amongst other things, that they 'support freedom of association and representation in the workplace' and 'ensure that enterprise agreements used on government funded projects are genuinely agreed'. The issue with that is that, if you actually believe in the freedom of association, you accept that employees have a right not to be part of a union and a union based agreement just as much as they have a right to be part of such a collective agreement. What we're seeing here is, a couple of years down the track, the government trying to take away that very fundamental freedom for Australians en masse.

The submissions on that paper closed on 20 February, and there have been no further announcements since. That was until the government released a media statement saying that the bill 'does not impose any obligation on the Commonwealth to require enterprise agreements in contracting, but how and when to do so is being carefully considered as part of the development of the Secure Australian Jobs Code', notwithstanding that we're in 2026. The reality—the simple reality; we see this time and time again—is that union donations go into the Labor Party and Labor Party policy reflects the union demands. That's how it works—union donations in; union policy out. We've seen it time and time again. So it's a little bit cute to say that this wouldn't be a mandatory requirement of the legislation if it were passed, because we know very clearly what the Labor Party will do in government. They will absolutely enforce this sort of preferment to the union cartel in Australia. We've seen that in the state of Victoria—the formerly great state of Victoria, I would say—where some $15 billion to $30 billion at the moment has been squirrelled away into organised crime and union facilitated corruption. That's just unacceptable. For it to be included, as the member for Cook rightly said, as some beltway banditry in this bill is not something that we will let slide.

The Gillard government's 2009 introduction to the Fair Work Act, including principles that made a condition for participation as part of the federal government's procurement principles, included a requirement that tenderers for government work operate under an enterprise agreement containing a dispute resolution procedure that allows the settlement of disputes by Fair Work Australia. The government in 2014, the then Abbott government, repealed those. Here we go, 12 years later, because this bill is seeking to make amendments to the Fair Work Act regarding exactly that—discrimination in procurement related to bargaining. But I thought it was called the 'building cooperative workplaces No.1 bill'! Well, this is because you've got to look at the detail. The so-called end of legislation, which was promised by the Prime Minister, has gone exactly the same way as all of his other promises. It has been broken. So, currently, the Fair Work Act prohibits discrimination against an employer based on whether or not its employees are or are not covered by certain industrial instruments, including the National Employment Standards, workplace instruments and enterprise agreements. That's a reasonable position because it means that no-one in Australia, including the Commonwealth government, can prefer one company over another just because it has union affiliated enterprise agreements. But this bill creates an exemption that would allow the Commonwealth to do exactly that, to discriminate, and allow the Commonwealth to prefer procurement from a supplier whose employees are covered by a union covered enterprise agreement. Put simply, the bill is creating an exemption by allowing discrimination where the employer's employees—that is, their workers—are not covered by an enterprise agreement or a kind of enterprise agreement that does not reflect the union coverage. That's one-directional. It only excuses discrimination that favours union dominated enterprise agreement coverage in workforces.

Shouldn't that be, if we refer to those earlier comments where we believed in the freedom of association, as the government says that it does, a complete contradiction in terms? As I said, that freedom applies both ways—the freedom to associate and the freedom not to associate. Again, I turn to the claim that we hear from the government that it doesn't force any agency or entity to use those provisions. This would be the only such discrimination that would be allowed under the act, and it would permit the government to do something that is currently prohibited by the Gillard government's Fair Work Act 2009. The government claims that the secure jobs code will provide the detail on how this will be used in practice. But let's not skip past the fundamental point. In this country, we believe in Australians making the right decisions for themselves. Here, the government is creating a loophole for itself, and itself only, to provide taxpayer funded support in union preferred procurement. It is an outrageous and blatant attempt to curry favour with their union mates. We understand why. Union donations in; union policy out—I get how it works. But they should look the Australian taxpayer in the eye and explain that that is what they are doing. They shouldn't bury it at the back of the so-called Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026. It should be called the 'giving taxpayer money to our union mates bill'. In that case, we could have a rip-roaring debate in this place about what they are trying to do.

These provisions are particularly concerning because they allow—and the moment you allow something when you've got the Labor party in charge you know that it will result in Commonwealth procurement contracting processes that will preference employers with union covered enterprise agreements. If you are a small or family owned business in Australia who's done the right thing, who's sat down with your employees and negotiated individual agreements, for instance, that might best reflect the skills and experience and the particularly productive employees in your workplace, you've got no chance now. The Commonwealth government is not going to use the taxpayer money they take from you to enable you to bid for work and to supply the Commonwealth, because they've gone and slammed the door shut so that they can shovel that money off to their union mates. That is limiting freedom of association. It is a conflict of the very central procurement principle that the Commonwealth should be focused on value for money. It also risks turning Commonwealth procurement into a mechanism for pushing union covered enterprise agreements across government contracts and down through supply chains.

When you consider just how big the federal government has got under this current government—at some 27.1 per cent of GDP on the government's own budget papers—it should be gravely concerning that they're opening the door to this sort of discrimination. It would be gravely concerning on a point of fundamental value, but it is particularly concerning in the wake of the Watson report, which I know previous coalition speakers have touched on. The title of that report Rotting from the top by Geoffrey Watson, SC should say it all. It is a looking glass into what would happen if we allowed this sort of legislation to go through without belling the cat. Watson found that the enterprise agreement system in Victorian construction had been so thoroughly corrupted that he described it as an old-fashioned 'pay to play' corruption. There was no genuine bargaining under that system. A CFMEU official told a contractor executive:

There is no bargaining—no, nothing will be changed in this agreement.

The quotes continue:

… they control the market. The Big Build is theirs. You can't get in if you don't know someone.

An individual being recorded in an undercover sting, and who described himself as a fixer, said about the price of entry:

There's a fee to get an EBA.

I think the upfront fee is cash.

Is this the sort of thing that we should be encouraging the Commonwealth government to be setting as a national standard for procurement? On this side of the House, we actually don't believe in that. We don't believe in taking taxpayer money off hardworking Australians and funnelling it straight into that sort of corruption. But, because we're dancing to the tune of union paymasters, it would seem, this bill, the workplace relations legislation amendment bill, which has been very cutely named, as I said, is a trojan horse for an absolutely egregious assault on freedom of association in Australia and a complete perversion of any decency when it comes to Commonwealth government procurement.

We could have looked not just at Victoria but also at Queensland to learn some lessons here from the so-called Queensland best practice industry conditions. I guess this is a bit of a trend we've got here. It sounds great—best practice industry conditions. What could possibly go wrong with something like that? We actually know. Having booted the then Queensland Labor government out, Queenslanders are now discovering that the project costs in their state were inflated by some 25 per cent, creating a blowout of $17.1 billion. This is on top of the $15 billion to $30 billion that we saw squirrelled away into organised crime and the union corruption racket that we had in Victoria. So to see that the best-practice industry conditions, having been abolished in Queensland, are now being resuscitated by the backdoor with this federal legislation and put on steroids—given the government's addiction to spending—we should be gravely concerned.

But it's not just the coalition members of this place that are concerned; it's stakeholders across the board. The Housing Industry Association are particularly concerned, of course, because those who have been at the coalface of construction know just how bad this can be. They're joined by the Master Builders of Australia, who said:

The potential exclusion of those legally operating under an industrial award, including those providing above award conditions, is fundamentally unfair, particularly for small businesses operating in the building and construction industry who make up 98 per cent of the industry and generally do not rely on an enterprise agreement.

Well, we're seeing what the Labor government are planning for those small and family-owned businesses; they're going to crush them out of existence. They are going to mandate a union cartel across the construction sector in Australia and funnel taxpayer money into it accordingly. It is a disgrace that it's dressed up under the Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1 bill title. As I said, it should be the 'racketeering and union rorts bill of 2026' instead, because then the Australian people would have a real sense of what their government is trying to do here today.

As coalition members have said previously, when it comes to the sensible parts of this bill that were put forward, we could absolutely support those any day. But the fact that they have been tied together with such an egregious assault on our freedoms is unacceptable.

David Batt (Hinkler, Liberal National Party) | Link to this | 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.

Angie Bell (Moncrieff, Liberal National Party, Shadow Minister for Youth) | Link to this | 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—

Lisa Chesters (Bendigo, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! I apologise to the member for Moncrieff, but the debate is interrupted. In accordance with the resolution agreed to on 23 June 2026, the time allotted for this debate has expired. The question is that the amendment be agreed to.

Milton Dick (Speaker) | Link to this | Hansard source

The question before the House is that the bill be read a second time.