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

The question before the House is the bill be agreed to. In accordance with the resolution agreed to yesterday, the question now is the amendments circulated by the member for Wentworth be agreed to.

Before I call the member for Wentworth, I'll just explain to the House that we did receive identical amendments from the member for Wannon and the member for Wentworth. The member for Wentworth's amendments were the first to be circulated, so this means they will be dealt with first, as are the traditions and customs of the House. When the House has made a decision on the member for Wentworth's amendments, the member for Wannon's amendments may not be considered by the House, because they're the same piece of work. That's in accordance with standing order 150(e)—if people want to follow where we're at, that's what we're dealing with—and House of Representatives Practice on page 299 and page 375.

Member for Wentworth 's circulated amendment s

(1) Schedule 1, Part 9, page 18 (line 1) to page 21 (line 25), omit the Part. [exemption from general protections in certain circumstances]

(2) Schedule 1, item 62, page 26 (lines 8 to 15), omit Division 7. [exemption from general protections in certain circumstances]

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) | Link to this | 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—

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

Order! If members could limit their conversations in the chamber—

Member for Cunningham, while I'm speaking—perhaps we can show some courtesy and respect to the member for Wentworth. If people wish to be here for that, that's okay, but I'd just ask them to limit their conversations. The member for Wentworth in continuation.

Allegra Spender (Wentworth, Independent) | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you. Now that it's slightly quieter, I'd like to make the point as to why this matters. These sorts of arrangements have been used in Queensland, and it has reduced productivity in the construction industry, which is holding back housing supply in this country. So this really matters. It matters because these sorts of provisions were used and abused by the CFMEU in terms of driving organised crime and corruption that cost the taxpayer in Victoria an estimated $15 billion. These are big numbers, and this really matters. So this legislation matters. There are not the safeguards there to stop it affecting the construction industry; it's just an assertion by the minister. That is not good enough, and it exposes other parts of our government to the sorts of enterprise agreements that have happened in the past.

I support enterprise agreements. I wish the government would simplify the awards to make it easier for good businesses to do good enterprise agreements, particularly small businesses, because the awards are so complicated that it's impossible. But we should be using government money to get value for taxpayers, not to support industrial relations arrangements that you guys support. Thank you.

Amanda Rishworth (Kingston, Australian Labor Party, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wentworth for her amendment, but the government will be opposing this amendment, which seeks to siphon out our reforms to reinvigorate enterprise bargaining. These reforms will allow Commonwealth government spending to support secure jobs and fair working conditions through the ability to preference enterprise agreements negotiated in good faith and genuinely agreed, where appropriate, to do so. Enterprise agreements are a transparent and effective way of delivering secure jobs and fair conditions for workers as well as flexibility and productivity for employers.

Importantly, I would make clear that the bill does not impose any obligations on the Commonwealth to do anything. How the Commonwealth government does its spending should support secure jobs and fair working conditions, and how this will be done is being carefully considered as part of the development of the secure Australian jobs code. Value for money and quality, timely delivery will remain front and centre of all government spending decisions.

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

The question is that the amendments moved by the honourable member for Wentworth be agreed to.

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

The question is that the bill be agreed to.