Jane Hume (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Employment and Industrial Relations) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026. This bill is really a tale of two stories, and the first deserves our support, but the second story deserves serious condemnation. The first part contains very sensible reforms to help the Fair Work Commission manage an unprecedented workload, but the second part fundamentally changes Commonwealth procurement to allow for governments to preference businesses that have union backed enterprise agreements. So one is about fixing a problem, but the other is about pursuing Labor ideology and placing corruption at the centre of Commonwealth procurement. The coalition supports the first, but of course we oppose the second. The tragedy is that, once again, Labor has bundled something that's entirely uncontroversial with something that is deeply controversial. It's using the very sensible Fair Work Commission reforms as a cover for something completely unrelated, and that is a union procurement agenda.

That seems surprising because the government is led by a prime minister who, at his very first press conference after his elevation, promised to lead a government that doesn't seek to divide and doesn't seek to have wedges. Even more surprising, as opposition leader Anthony Albanese, now prime minister, criticised what he called 'wedge-islation'. Those are his words; they are not mine. He said, 'People are sick of a government that has "wedge-islation", as I call it, looking to wedge the opposition rather than legislation.' Well, Prime Minister, take your own advice. If the Fair Work Commission reforms are good policy—and they are—let them stand on their own. If the procurement bargaining provisions are good policy, bring them forward in a separate bill and make a case for them rather than ramming them through the Senate with limited scrutiny and limited debate. Instead, what Labor has done is that they've bundled them together in the hope that the parliament will swallow the controversial provisions to secure the uncontroversial ones. That's exactly the kind of 'wedge-islation' that the Prime Minister himself once condemned.

Let's turn to the Fair Work Commission reforms themselves. Last year, President Justice Adam Hatcher publicly spoke about the extraordinary increase in claims that the commission was facing. Earlier this year, the commission's general manager warned that increasing workloads, growing numbers of self-represented applicants, budget constraints and the rise of generative AI were all placing strain on every part of the commission's operations. Those warnings were ignored.

Now, after months of inaction, Labor has finally produced legislation to help the commission, and, as I say, that is welcome. But hidden away in part 9 of this bill is a completely unrelated procurement agenda that has nothing to do with the Fair Work Commission's backlog. That's why the coalition this week introduced its own bill. Our bill contains every Fair Work Commission reform that the commission asked for—every single one. What it doesn't contain though is Labor's dirty union procurement deal. The coalition's bill could pass today, no problem. It could have passed last week. If the government was serious, the Fair Work Commission could have had its reforms ready to go on a platter. The only reason it doesn't is because Labor has insisted on attaching part 9. The Fair Work Commission asked for workload reforms. It did not ask for procurement bargaining provisions.

Actually, the only people that did ask for those procurement bargaining provisions were Labor's donors and their favourite protection racket, the CFMEU. I'll deal with the CFMEU later on. Let me deal briefly with the Fair Work Commission's reforms first. The coalition supports restoring the commission's ability to move quickly into conciliation without first becoming bogged down in technical jurisdictional disputes. This is something that is perfectly fair and reasonable.

We also support allowing appropriate procedural powers to be delegated to senior commission staff rather than commissioner themselves. That also is perfectly fair and reasonable. We support giving the commission stronger powers to deal with frivolous and vexatious litigants. We think this is really important and should have been done a long time ago. We support allowing matters to be determined on the papers, where it's appropriate and where parties consent. Again, perfectly sensible requests. These are practical reforms that reduce delay. They reduce cost, and they help workers and employees and employers resolve disputes more quickly. Why is this important? Because justice delayed is justice denied. There are also a number of sensible technical amendments that are uncontroversial, and the coalition supports those as well. There is one measure concerning a separate high-income threshold for road transport contractors that we believe deserves additional scrutiny through a Senate inquiry.

But none of these matters explain part 9. Part 9 has nothing to do with the Fair Work Commission's efficiency—absolutely nothing. Part 9 changes the Fair Work Act so that the Commonwealth can preference businesses with union backed enterprise agreements when awarding taxpayer funded contracts, grants and procurement arrangements. Those preferences don't just apply to the businesses that are directly in contract with the government; they also can extend through supply chains as well.

This is a major policy change—and not an unfamiliar one, I might add. It's one we've seen before in Queensland, where the Palaszczuk government saw it lead to extraordinary corruption and the misuse of enterprise bargaining in the directing of taxpayer dollars. Yet federal Labor has tried to hide it inside a bill that's supposedly about helping the Fair Work Commission. That should concern every business in Australia—particularly every small business—every tenderer and every Australian. As stakeholders have said, it places risk of corruption written into law.

The minister says: 'Don't worry about this. It's a bill that does not impose any obligation on the Commonwealth. There is no obligation, so you don't need to worry about it.' For goodness sake, if Labor has no intention of using these powers, why is it legislating for them? Governments don't create powers that they don't intend to use. The government says, 'Don't worry about that—all the detail is going to be contained in the Secure Australian Jobs Code.' Terrific, but where is that code? Where is it, Minister? Let's be honest: the consultation for that code closed months ago, and parliament hasn't seen it. Business hasn't seen it. The Australian people haven't seen it. Yet Labor wants parliament to pass legislation that has the legal framework before anyone's actually seen the policy. That's backwards. Parliament is being asked to, essentially, sign the cheque before it's seen the invoice. Government procurement should be based on one thing, and one thing alone, and that is value for money—value for money, capability and compliance with the law—not on whether a business has signed an industrial agreement that is preferred by the government. This bill changes that.

The government says that this is about enterprise bargaining, but that misses the point entirely. There's nothing wrong with enterprise bargaining. In fact, it's been an established part of Australia's workplace relations system for years. Employers and employees are free to enter enterprise agreements if they choose. But the question here is something entirely different: should governments use taxpayer funded contracts to favour businesses with certain industrial relations arrangements? The coalition says no. We say no, and we are not alone. The consequences of this change extend well beyond head contractors. The bill expressly allows these arrangements to operate through contractual chains. A Commonwealth contract can affect subcontractors too. Subcontractors can affect suppliers. Entire supply chains may ultimately feel the pressure of this one, seemingly innocuous, change.

That's a profound change to the Commonwealth Procurement Rules, and it deserves proper scrutiny. Instead, Labor wants to rush it through the parliament. We all know where this road ends. We've seen it before: Queensland's Best Practice Industry Conditions policy, the BPIC, became synonymous with increased costs, reduced competition and lower productivity. The Queensland government abolished it, but here we are again. This time, federal Labor wants to recreate the same policy at the Commonwealth level. It's doing so while Australia is still coming to terms with the fallout in Queensland and still coming to terms with the shocking revelations surrounding the CFMEU.

The Watson report should be compulsory reading for every member of this parliament. It described an enterprise agreement system in Victorian construction that had become, in Geoffrey Watson's words, 'thoroughly corrupted'. He described old-fashioned pay-to-play corruption. He found that there was, effectively, no genuine bargaining. A CFMEU official was quoted as saying:

"There is no bargaining … nothing will be changed in this agreement."

Mr Watson warned only this week about creating new systems that concentrate power over access to taxpayer funded work. He said:

… the power to give an EBA was concentrated in the hands of a few people, and that meant that it was very, very easily corrupted … It meant that the people who held that power could control the market.

He also warned that:

… people will pay bribes to get EBAs. People will solicit bribes to give EBAs.

After everything that Australians have learned over the last year, why would any government deliberately create another system that concentrates power over access to taxpayer funded work? That's the question that Labor can't answer.

Business groups have been united in their criticisms. The Business Council of Australia has described these provisions as 'a corruption risk written into law'. Bran Black, the head of the BCA, warned that 'every Australian will pay for it', and the Business Council has said that these provisions reach 'every corner of the economy', including infrastructure, energy, health and defence.

Ai Group says that the proposal risks undermining one of the cornerstones of Australia's workplace relations system, which is freedom of association, something we should all hold dear. It warns that these provisions open the door to governments forcing employers and employees to strike deals with unions in order to commercially deal with the government. That's the prerequisite. Its conclusion is simple: the simplest course would be to abandon this proposal entirely.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has described it as a 'sneaky move to aid union mates'. Master Builders Australia warns that lawful businesses operating under rewards, including those paying above award wages may be disadvantaged, despite doing absolutely nothing wrong.

These are not fringe organisations. These are Australia's peak employment bodies. They all see the same risk, and the coalition sees it too. This debate is not about whether enterprise agreements are good or whether they're bad; it's about whether governments should use taxpayer funded procurement to favour businesses with those particular industrial arrangements. That's a very different question.

Labor says: 'Oh, construction will be carved out. Don't worry about that.' Well, show us where. It's not in this bill. There's no carve out in this bill. Parliament legislates the words before us, not ministerial assurances, not media releases and not promises about a future jobs code that nobody has seen. The path forward is actually very simple: pass the Fair Work Commission reforms, give the commission the tools it's been looking for, reduce those delays and help workers and employers resolve disputes more quickly. The coalition supports all of those reforms. Not only that; we introduced our own legislation to demonstrate that. But we reject Labor's dirty union procurement deal. Don't use the Fair Work Commission's workload as a cover for a completely unrelated agenda, don't ask the parliament to pass a legal framework before releasing the policy and don't make government contracts depend on whether a business has signed Labor's preferred industrial agreement.

The Fair Work Commission has asked for practical reforms. It did not ask for part 9. Business didn't ask for part 9. Taxpayers didn't ask for part 9. The only people asking for part 9 are those who stand to benefit from it, and who would that be? Surprise, it's the union movement. Labor is the political arm of the union movement. Of course, you are doing this. But the consequences are so profound. Your responsibilities are greater here.

In 2018, the corrupt CFMEU produced a wish list of policies for a future Labor government, and guess what? That list includes holding a referendum on the Voice—tick, it did that. It includes preferencing union agreements—tick. And it includes implementing government procurement rules to support trade unionism—tick. What's next? We're all wondering. Just read the list.

The coalition supports practical reforms that improve the operation of the Fair Work Commission, but we cannot support this bill while it contains these procurement bargaining provisions and introduces corruption risk to every taxpayer dollar we spend on procurement. That's why we've moved amendments to remove part 9. If those amendments are agreed to, we'll support the bill. If they are not, we cannot support this bill.

Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak in support of the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026. This is an important bill, a practical bill and, above all, a bill that continues the work of building a fairer, safer and more productive economy for working Australians. It is a bill I'm proud of, as a Labor senator here in this place. It is a bill which reflects the values that have always motivated the labour movement in this country. We on this side of the chamber know that, when you work hard, you deserve decent pay, a decent and secure job, a safe workplace, dignity on the job, a fair go and a fair say over the conditions under which you work.

At the outset, I want to acknowledge the work of Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations Amanda Rishworth. Minister Rishworth understands that workplace relations are about whether a worker can pay the bills, whether a parent can balance work and care, whether a woman is paid fairly, whether a truck driver is protected from unfair treatment, whether a young worker gets a genuine start and whether people can get to work and come home safe. These are fundamental things that we, on this side, the Labor Party and the labour movement believe in—unlike those in the new coalition of One Nation, the Liberals and the Nationals.

One Nation believes—and we haven't heard anything to the contrary from those opposite—that a boss should be able to sack their workers whenever they want and that women on maternity leave should not be paid. That's the view of that new partnership on that side of the chamber.

We, this government, in our first term, have made a number of reforms when it comes to industrial relations—significant changes to the Fair Work Act which commenced almost two decades ago. After too many years in which wages were deliberately suppressed, job insecurity was normalised and loopholes were allowed to flourish under those opposite, this government set about repairing the system. Those reforms were guided to promote job security, to advance gender equality, get wages moving again, improve safety and close loopholes that had undermined fairness in the workplace. They were reforms grounded in the lived experience of Australian workers and informed by a simple proposition: when work is fairer, our economy is stronger and our people are happier. We should say that clearly in this place.

And none of this has happened by accident. Improvements in pay and conditions have always come because working people organised, unions advocated, Labor governments legislated and communities demanded something better. From the eight hour day to paid leave, superannuation, unfair dismissal protection and equal pay advances, the labour movement has been the great reforming force for fairness at work in Australia—always has been; always will be. This bill stands in that tradition. It is not a departure from that history; it is the next chapter in it.

While the Liberal Party implodes and One Nation gains a foothold in our political system, I think it's important to reflect, on this side of the chamber, on what we, as a government, believe in: that is, delivering for every Australian. With this bill, the government builds on its first term reforms with a package of practical measures to improve the operations of the workplace relations system and support more cooperative and productive workplaces. That's what we need: the workplaces that are working with their bosses to actually improve our production and strengthen our economy. That matters, because a good workplace relations system must do two things at once. It must protect workers from unfairness and exploitation, and it must provide practical, efficient pathways for employers and employees to resolve disputes, bargain in good faith and get on with the job of building productive enterprises.

First, the bill contains a set of important measures to help the Fair Work Commission more effectively perform its vital functions. The commission is our national workplace relations tribunal. Workers and employers turn to it for dispute resolution, protection of rights, oversight of bargaining and practical decisions that affect people's daily lives. If we want a fairer workplace system—which we do—then the commission must be equipped to do the work efficiently and effectively. This bill supports that by reducing procedural rigidity, streamlining administration and giving the commission sensible tools to manage its workload, while preserving substantive protection for workers. These measures are consistent with the government's objective of ensuring that justice is accessible, timely and real rather than delayed, costly or needlessly rigid, without the ability to have your dispute resolved in a such a manner that no-one is going to be disadvantaged.

The bill will remove the requirement to hold a formal hearing simply to determine whether an application in a general protections matter has or has not been dismissed before the commission can seek to resolve the dispute. Instead, the commission will be able to conduct a conference to try to resolve the matter. That is a commonsense change. It saves time, reduces expense and also avoids forcing parties into unnecessary litigation. The bill will also allow the president of the commission to delegate certain functions to commission staff, including issuing certificates where parties have made reasonable attempts to resolve a general protections dispute without success.

The bill gives the commission discretion, with the consent of the parties, to determine appropriate matters on the papers. It strengthens the commission's power to deal with vexatious and frivolous applications. It allows unfair terminations and unfair deactivation applications to be dismissed where they are frivolous, vexatious or have no reasonable prospect of success. It streamlines supported bargaining authorisations where there is already an existing supported bargaining agreement covering the same or substantially the same group of workers and employers. These are measured reforms, but they will make a very real difference. These are practical, measured reforms that will make the whole process for the commission and also workers and employees much more sensible.

Secondly, the bill supports good-faith bargaining. That is vital. The government inherited a bargaining system that had become badly weakened. Enterprise bargaining had declined dramatically, and with that decline came weaker wage growth, poorer workplace engagement and fewer opportunities for workers and employers to negotiate arrangements that reflected the needs of their industries and workplaces. We know that was the whole purpose of what those opposite did when they were in government.

The government's first-term reforms helped reinvigorate bargaining by reducing barriers and restoring confidence in the system. This matters because bargaining, done properly, is one of the most effective ways to deliver fair and good wage increases, better conditions, workplace flexibility and productivity gains. It is not and should never be a barrier to economic success; it is one of the foundations of it. When our economy is strong, all Australians benefit from that.

The measure in this bill that allows the Commonwealth's spending, where appropriate, to preference employers with enterprise agreements negotiated in good faith and genuinely agreed is a sensible and constructive step. It recognises that public money should help support decent labour standards, secure jobs and fair conditions. It does not create a blanket obligation, and it will continue to operate alongside value-for-money requirements and established procurement rules. But it sends an important signal that government purchasing power should help encourage cooperative workplaces, lawful conduct and fair outcomes for workers. That approach is also being considered through the Secure Australian Jobs Code, which aims to ensure government expenditure supports safe, secure and well-paid jobs.

Thirdly, the bill contains an important reform for the road transport sector. In 2024, the government introduced protections in the Fair Work Commission for truck drivers and small road transport businesses against unfair contract terminations and unfair contract terms. That was an important recognition that road transport workers and owner-drivers often operate in high-pressure commercial arrangements, with significant issues around time management and pressures to deliver in unrealistic timeframes. The existing high-income thresholds have not been fit for purpose for many road transport contractors, because their gross income can be inflated by very substantial operating costs such as fuel, maintenance and vehicle expenses. This bill addresses that problem by enabling a separate road transport contractors' high-income threshold to be established, which will allow hardworking truckies and small road transport businesses to access protections that were intended for them. This is a practical change, and, for many people in the industry, it will mean the difference between having a remedy and having nothing.

I'd like to put on the record thanks to the mighty Transport Workers' Union and, in particular, Michael Kaine, the national secretary, for his steadfast advocacy and passion for trucking and road transport workers; my very good friend Senator Glenn Sterle, a former truckie and official of the TWU; our industrious, mighty Tony Sheldon, who sits in this chamber with us and knows only too well the difference that these changes are going to make to that industry; Senator Jana Stewart; and my good friend Senator O'Neill. We understand what having fair wages, a safe working environment and a strong economy does for Australians, and that's why we on this side will always look out for Australian workers.

Fourthly, the bill makes a targeted amendment relating to the administration of the construction and general division of the CFMEU. We know that those opposite are absolutely obsessed with the CFMEU. The government took the strongest possible action in legislating for the appointment of an administrator. That was a serious step in response to serious concerns, and it reflected the principle that no organisation is above scrutiny and no worker should have their interests undermined by misconduct, criminality or corruption. The amendment in this bill simply provides an appropriate timeframe for the administrator to prepare and submit to the minister a biannual financial report while leaving the content and scope of the reporting obligations intact. It is a practical measure to support effective administration and proper accountability.

Finally, the bill supports the operations of the important tripartite advisory bodies in the workplace relations system. This matters because cooperation is not just a slogan; it is a method. When government, employers and workers come together through a structured tripartite mechanism, policy can be better informed, more practical and more durable. That's what this bill is about. But we know those opposite, with their new arrangement with One Nation, will want to rip out all the changes that we've brought in since we came into government, such as improving workers' pay and conditions. They will rip that up because they will join forces with One Nation, and one of the few policies One Nation has actually voiced is that they want bosses to be able to sack workers more easily. I say shame on you. Australians will reject that each and every day.

Barbara Pocock (SA, Australian Greens) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026. The bill makes a series of technical but nonetheless worthwhile and important changes to Australia's industrial relations framework, clarifying jurisdictional processes, streamlining how the Fair Work Commission handles disputes and establishing more appropriate income thresholds for road transport contractors.

The Greens approach industrial relations from a simple but firm foundation. Work should be dignified, fairly rewarded and conducted in conditions where workers have genuine power to advocate for themselves. Workers should not go backwards and workers must be safe at work. Collective bargaining, strong union rights and accessible dispute resolution aren't bureaucratic conveniences; they are the mechanisms through which working people exercise democratic voice in their economic lives. This bill advances that framework in modest but meaningful ways, and the Greens support it.

I want to acknowledge that there are workers here with their representatives in this room. I recognise those from the United Firefighters Union. Thank you for being here in your parliament, and you've come to witness our work this afternoon. You're welcome, and you have a right to expect this parliament to keep you safe and ensure that you don't go backwards. At a time when too many workers feel they are working harder for less, when wages have failed to keep up with the cost of living and when insecure work continues to spread through large parts of the economy, strengthening workers' rights is essential. For decades, the rules of our economy have tilted towards those with the most power and the deepest pockets. This parliament has a responsibility to start restoring some balance and to fix loopholes in our system.

The Greens support the general protections exemption provisions in this bill which allow the Commonwealth to consider an employer's workplace practices when making procurement decisions. These provisions recognise a simple truth—government spending should be used to support good union jobs that pay a good wage. Every year, the Commonwealth spends tens of billions of dollars procuring goods and services from private companies. That is public money. It is taxpayers' money, and taxpayers have every right to expect that their money is not being used to subsidise insecure work, low wages or poor employment practices. Why should a company that undermines collective bargaining, strips away conditions or relies on insecure work be rewarded with lucrative government contracts? Public procurement is a legitimate lever for governments to shape the economy and to shape the labour market. We should be using that leverage to lift standards, not drive them down. These provisions recognise that, when the Commonwealth enters into contracts, it's not merely buying a service; it's making a choice about the kind of labour market, the kind of workplaces and the kind of workers' rights and workers' safety that it wants to support.

The Greens make no apology for saying that public money should support secure jobs, fair wages and decent conditions. For too long, governments of both persuasions have handed out public contracts with little regard to how workers are treated, and the results have been a race to the bottom, where some businesses gain a competitive advantage by cutting wages and conditions. That's not market failure; it's policy failure. If companies want access to public money, they should meet community expectations. Government procurement should reward employers who do the right thing by their workers, not those who treat their workers as disposable or cut or minimise their conditions to win contract work. No business has a right to a Commonwealth contract. Access to public money is a privilege, not an entitlement, and with that privilege should come obligations, including treating workers fairly and respecting their rights to organise and bargain collectively, to bargain within their enterprise as a group.

The Greens will be moving amendments to this bill to improve cooperation in Australian workplaces. Cooperative workplaces rely on workers and employers reaching agreement through genuine bargaining. Cooperation cannot exist where one side holds all the power. These amendments go to a simple principle: workers should never come out worse off because bargaining has broken down. These amendments seek to improve arrangements around intractable bargaining workplace determinations.

The amendments ensure that mandatory terms included in an intractable bargaining workplace determination cannot be less favourable than the equivalent provisions in the existing enterprise agreement. That is, you can't be ratcheted downward just because your employer is holding out in bargaining. Why is that important? Because enterprise agreements are not gifts from employers. They are won by workers. Every consultation clause, every flexibility provision, every delegates' rights clause and every dispute settlement clause has usually been secured after months—sometimes years—of negotiations, bargaining, organising and compromise. Workers have sacrificed pay rises, undertaken industrial action and invested enormous time and energy in so many cases to secure these conditions.

It would be fundamentally unfair if, after bargaining becomes intractable, workers could lose conditions that they've already won simply because the process moved into the hands of the Fair Work Commission. Without these amendments, there is a real risk that employers could view intractable bargaining as an opportunity to strip back conditions. Workers need certainty that the law cannot be used in that way.

This isn't some obscure theoretical point. It's having real-world impacts now. In Victoria, for example, as the firefighters here, present in our chamber, know from bitter experience, an employer is using the law to try to take away firefighters' rights to be consulted on and have a real say about what uniforms they wear into a fire. This is no trivial matter. This is a matter of life and death. It's a matter of safety for workers. It's a life-and-death matter that deserves our clear protection. It's a serious health and wellbeing issue for firefighters.

I'll give you another example. In December 2025, the Fair Work Commission intractable-bargaining decision in the Endeavour Energy case showed exactly why this amendment is essential. The CEPU/ETU had long maintained a detailed consultation clause requiring the employer to meaningfully engage with workers before major operational changes. In arbitration, however, the commission replaced this with a narrower provision closer to a statutory minimum. It stripped things back, and as a result workers lost elements of their superior consultation rights under the previous enterprise agreement. The commission reasoned that the 'no less favourable' requirement under section 270A of the Fair Work Act would not apply to mandatory terms like the consultation clause. As a result, CEPU members lost their hard-won consultation standard.

This issue also has big implications for many state public sector workers, who may get pushed into federal arbitration, and others, like staff in universities, for whom hard-won clauses around consultation are critically important. These clauses shape the experience of working life. They bring a voice of workers to the bargaining table when changes are introduced, and they need protection.

The Greens believe that collective bargaining only works when workers bargain from a position of strength. They need decent legislation free of loopholes to underpin their standing when they come to the bargaining table. We know that Australian workers have experienced decades of declining bargaining power, stagnant wages in too many places and growing insecurity. Too often, working people have been told to accept less while corporate profits have continued to rise. Too often, unions and workplace delegates have been treated as obstacles rather than as the democratic representatives and voice of working people. Too often, governments speak about productivity while ignoring the fact that decent wages, secure conditions and the right to have a say in your workplace are themselves the foundation of productive workplaces.

These amendments send a different message. They say that workers' rights are not disposable. There must be no slipping backwards. The Greens' amendment clarifies that, where there is an agreement in place and parties are negotiating for a new one and one party has applied for an intractable-bargaining workplace determination, that determination can't take workers backwards. Each term of the determination must be no less favourable than the corresponding term of the agreement. It restores the position that your current agreement stays in place until you negotiate a new one. It's not about giving workers and their unions new terms and conditions. It's about saying they can't go backwards. It's urgently needed, and it's in line with the intentions of this bill. That is a fair and balanced approach. It protects the integrity of enterprise bargaining; it provides certainty to workers, employers and unions alike; and it reinforces a principle that should command support across this chamber: that arbitration should not be used as a vehicle to diminish existing workplace rights.

I want to acknowledge the assistance of a number of unions in helping us to get to where we are today—the United Firefighters Union, the public sector unions, the National Tertiary Education Union. They have brought attention to this issue, they have illuminated the way in which it's affecting workers and bargaining, and they have worked hard to assist to find a way forward.

I also acknowledge the support and assistance of Minister Rishworth and her staff, and the department, in working through a way of managing this amendment to close this important loophole. I especially acknowledge the persistence and hard work of Eliza Littleton and Sophie Eller, on the Greens side, in amongst our staff. They have worked so hard with others in the union movement and in ministers' offices to make sure we get to a place that moves us forward in a positive way and properly protects and keeps safe our workers in a wide range of occupations and a wide range of unions.

The Greens know there are employers who will always look for every loophole in a law to cut wages or take away conditions, and the law needs to make sure those workers don't go backwards, whether it's pay or conditions, hours of work or safety. That's why the Greens were pleased to work with the government to close this loophole and strengthen collective bargaining for Australian workers. These amendments ensure that cooperation at work is built on fairness, not on the erosion of conditions or holding out in bargaining to try and ratchet conditions downwards. For those reasons, I commend these amendments to the Senate.

Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister for Women) | Link to this | Hansard source

The coalition supports practical reforms that help the Fair Work Commission deal with its workload, but we do not support the enterprise bargaining procurement changes. The government should not be using sensible Fair Work Commission reforms as a cover for passing unrelated procurement changes—again, as is the hallmark of this government, another attempt under the cover of darkness. This bill, the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026, should be split so we can pass the Fair Work Commission reforms and separately scrutinise the procurement bargaining provisions. We call on the government to separate the bill into two, and we will support the Fair Work Commission changes alone. It is up to the government whether they choose to do that. If the government does not agree to this, we will not support the bill unamended.

Commonwealth procurement should be based on value for money, capability and compliance with the law, not whether a business has a preferred industrial instrument. We have seen what happens when procurement policy is used to advantage certain union-controlled arrangements. We have seen that in Victoria with the Big Build; we have seen the devastating impacts of that. We have seen the loss of some $15 billion of taxpayer funds. We have seen bullying, intimidation and corrupt and criminal conduct. It risks higher costs for taxpayers, reduced competition and a pay-to-play culture that entrenches corruption and shuts out lawful businesses. That is unacceptable.

I note Senator Barbara Pocock's comments that a cooperative workplace is one where one side doesn't hold all the power, but currently we have a scenario where in many workplaces the CFMEU does hold all the power. This bill risks embedding that even further. The procurement provisions risk pushing union-covered enterprise agreements through Commonwealth contracting and down supply chains. That is what will happen.

Senator Polley said that some of us on this side are obsessed with the CFMEU. Tell that to Victorians. Tell the Victorian taxpayers, who have funded the $15 billion worth of rorts, that raising that in this place is an obsession. It's the calling out of a reality. We have seen those same practices, those unlawful practices, extend to Queensland and to my home state of New South Wales. That is entirely unacceptable. Call it an obsession, but I will not stand by and allow my state of New South Wales to come to the same fate Victoria has with its Big Build and the entrenched illegal conduct of the CFMEU.

This government knows exactly what it is doing, and it knows that it is wrong. When a government truly believes in reform, it stands up and argues for it. It is transparent. It gives it its own bill. It sends it to a committee. It calls witnesses. It publishes submissions and lets the country look at it in the light of day. That is how a confident and transparent government legislates. That is what this government doesn't seem to want to do. It hides in the shadows. It won't provide documents transparently under OPDs. It makes stakeholders sign NDAs. That is the hallmark of the Albanese Labor government. A fundamental change to the way the Commonwealth spends every public dollar, a change that rewrites the rules of procurement for every contract and every single grant has been buried inside an unrelated bill about Fair Work Commission resourcing. Why? Why has this government buried it there? Because it didn't want anyone to see it. It didn't want the scrutiny. And, so far, it is refusing to separate it out.

Let's look at what that bundling together does. It takes a set of sensible, supportable reforms to help the commission with its workload and its straps the procurement grab to them like a hostage. 'Here, take both. You must take them both.' Vote for the workers waiting on the commission and you must also vote for the union's tollbooth. That's not a legislative program; that's some kind of absurd trap. Governments don't bury things that they are proud of. They bury things that they cannot defend. The secrecy here tells us everything. The secrecy here is the confession from the Albanese Labor government. If this provision could survive honest scrutiny, they would have given it time. But they did not because they know that it cannot.

And let us be clear about what this government knows. It is not acting in ignorance. It has the Watson report into CFMEU corruption. It knows about the agreements bought for cash. It knows about the labour hire deals sold for up to $1 million. It knows about the decent contractors driven out of business when the union refused them an agreement. It knows about Women in Construction that has at the helm of it an individual that has assaulted women. It knows that too. It knows that the system was, in the words of the Watson report, 'thoroughly corrupted' with 'old-fashioned pay to play'. Yet here we are. It knows all of it and, knowing all of it, it has written a bill that hands union agreements a privileged place in the spending of public money. Not a cooperative workplace, but in fact something where one side holds all the power. This is a government doing its paymasters bidding under the cover of darkness because it does not have the courage to do it in the daylight.

Currently, the Fair Work Act prohibits discrimination against an employer because of whether its employees are or are not covered by certain industrial instruments, including the National Employment Standards, workplace instruments or enterprise agreements. This means no-one, including the Commonwealth, can prefer one company over another just because it has union affiliated enterprise agreements.

This bill creates an exemption that would allow the Commonwealth to preference employers whose employees are covered by a union covered enterprise agreement. Put simply, this bill creates this exemption by allowing discrimination where an employer's employees are not covered by an enterprise agreement or a kind of enterprise agreement or are covered by an enterprise agreement that does not cover a union. Have a think about that for a minute. Have a think about the impacts of that. Again, is that a cooperative workplace where one side doesn't hold all the power? I don't know about that.

I want to reference the Watson report, Rotting from the top, and what it found. Geoffrey Watson SC wrote this report into corruption and misconduct in the CFMEU's Victorian construction branch. You'd have to be living under a rock not to see what's been happening in Victoria and the fact that Premier Jacinta Allan and the Prime Minister are pretending that there's nothing to see there—'If there's a problem, just go to the police and report it'—when in fact they are providing the cover for what the CFMEU has done in Victoria and is attempting to do in Queensland and New South Wales. The report only became public because it was tendered to the Queensland commission of inquiry into the CFMEU. Watson found the enterprise agreement system in Victorian construction had been—and these are his words—'thoroughly corrupted', describing it as 'old-fashioned "pay to play" corruption'.

Watson found that there was no genuine bargaining. A CFMEU official told a contractor executive:

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

Again, that doesn't sound like a cooperative workplace where one side doesn't hold all the power.

Watson found a number of concerning issues. He found that the CFMEU punished enemies by refusing EBAs, with no reasons given and no avenue for review. So you can't get the job if you don't have an EBA, but, if you don't do what the CFMEU tells you, then they're not going to give you an EBA, which means they're going to cut you out. Have a think about that. That denial of an agreement can drive a decent contractor out of business.

Self-described fixer Harry Korras, recorded in an undercover sting, described how the system worked:

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

The price of entry was described as follows:

There's a fee to get an EBA … the upfront fee is cash.

But let's protect that. Let's make sure that that gets to continue, and let's make sure that Commonwealth government procurement defends that. What a disgrace.

The lesson is not that enterprise agreements are inherently improper. They're not. 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—enter, stage left, Mick Gatto. 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. Do we really want to see in Commonwealth infrastructure projects what we have seen in the big build in Victoria? Is that what we are designing here? It appears to be.

I'll finish by putting forward some quotes from stakeholders and what they think of this bill. The Business Council of Australia said:

Public money should go to businesses that can deliver, not businesses that have signed the right union agreement …

The reach goes far beyond a single contract. A single Commonwealth project could impose these conditions on every business in its supply chain. The consequences would ripple through entire industries.

Master Builders Australia 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.

This is yet another assault by the Albanese Labor government on Australian small businesses, particularly those lawfully conducting business in the construction sector. It is shameful.

Finally, the Queensland Deputy Premier wrote to the minister, accusing the Albanese government of trying to revive Queensland's most controversial construction policy on a national scale, jeopardising the state's 2032 games delivery. In the letter, he declared Queensland would not back proposed workplace law changes he claims would nationalise the former Best Practice Industry Conditions policy, which was dubbed the 'CFMEU tax'. Here we have it: yet another tax on Australians and on Australian small businesses from the Albanese Labor government.

Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to support the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026. Some laws are about making the system work better—making sure that, when a worker or a small business needs help, they can get it without being caught up in delay, confusion or cost. This is what this bill does. It is a commonsense bill. It supports fairer workplaces. It supports better bargaining. It supports truck drivers and small road transport businesses. It helps the Fair Work Commission to do its job more quickly and more fairly. And it backs the simple idea that, when the Commonwealth spends public money, it should be able to support secure jobs and fair conditions. That matters in Tasmania. It matters in Greater Hobart, right across the state and across the country.

For most people, workplace laws are not something they think about every day, but they matter when your pay is wrong, they matter when your job is on the line, they matter when you're worried about speaking up at work and they matter when something has gone wrong and you need a fair way to sort it out. For a worker in a care home in Lenah Valley, a cleaner in Hobart, a truckie driving up the Midlands Highway or a construction worker building homes in the northern suburbs, these rules matter. They matter because people should be able to go to work, do their job and know the rules are fair.

The Fair Work Commission is central to that. It is where workers and employers go when they need a fair umpire. But the commission is under pressure. The workload has grown. New technology, including artificial intelligence, has made it easier for people to lodge claims, including claims that may have no real chance of success. That can slow down the system for everyone else, but, when the system slows down, it is ordinary people who feel it. A worker who has lost their job should not have to wait longer than they need to. A small-business owner should not have to spend months and thousands of dollars dealing with a matter that could have been sorted earlier. Unions, workers and employers all need a system that is fair, clear and timely.

This bill helps deliver that. It allows the Fair Work Commission to get to the heart of some general protections dismissal matters more quickly without first needing to run a formal hearing on whether a dismissal happened. That means the commission can spend less time on procedural arguments and more time trying to resolve the actual dispute. The bill allows some matters to be dealt with on the papers where that is appropriate and where the parties agree. Again, that saves money. It saves time.

Sue Lines (President) | Link to this | Hansard source

Pursuant to order agreed on 23 June 2026, the time allotted for consideration of eight bills has expired.