Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026
Mr BIRRELL (Nicholls) (12:49): I, too, rise to speak on the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026. Like so many pieces of legislation, the name defies what's actually in the bill. We support sensible reforms that help the Fair Work Commission to do its job more effectively.
We support measures that reduce unnecessary delays, measures that help workers and employers resolve disputes faster and practical changes that respond to the very real workload pressures that currently face the Fair Work Commission. What we don't support is the government using those sensible reforms as a vehicle for unrelated and highly controversial changes to Commonwealth procurement policy.
That's why the coalition will be moving amendments. If those amendments are not accepted, the coalition will oppose the bill. Like a lot of the bills that have come into this place since I've been here, this bill should be two bills.
It contains two completely separate policy agendas. One part of it deals with Fair Work Commission efficiency and case management, and I'll talk a bit about that. There are some reasonable reforms in that part of the legislation that I think are fair enough.
But the other part creates a legal framework for allowing Commonwealth procurement processes to preference businesses that have particular forms of enterprise agreements. We know what that means, don't we? These issues are not connected.
They solve different problems. One of them creates huge amounts of problems. They affect different stakeholders, and they deserve separate parliamentary scrutiny.
The government says this bill is about helping the Fair Work Commission manage its workload. If that's the objective, let us pass that part of the bill and those reforms immediately. But, instead, the government has trickily attached a second industrial relations agenda that has significant consequences for Commonwealth contracting, procurement and processes and supply chains across Australia.
The fact that these provisions have been bundled together raises an obvious question: if procurement measures are so sensible, why not put them before the parliament as a standalone bill? Why hide them amongst otherwise uncontroversial Fair Work Commission reforms? The Fair Work Commission has been very public about the challenges it's facing.
Its president has warned about unprecedented workloads. Applications have surged, processing times are increasing, resources are under pressure, and the commission has called for modest legislative changes to help manage the caseload. One example involves jurisdictional objections.
Following the Milford decision, the commission has increasingly been required to determine threshold legal questions before moving to conciliation and dispute resolution, and that means more hearings, more lawyers, more delays and more cost. The original purpose of these processes was to resolve the disputes quickly and informally, and this amendment restores that practical approach.
It allows the commission to commence conciliation where an applicant alleges dismissal or unlawful termination, rather than requiring lengthy arguments about jurisdiction even before the sensible discussions can take place. That's practical, and I support it. The bill also allows certain procedural powers to be delegated to senior commission staff, which is again intended to streamline administrative functions and reduce unnecessary delays.
If appropriate safeguards remain in place, then they are reasonable reforms. The coalition supports measures dealing with vexatious and frivolous claims. Likewise, allowing certain matters to be determined on the papers without the consent of parties is simply common sense.
Not every matter is going to require a hearing. Not every matter requires people to travel, engage representatives and wait months for listing dates. If disputes can be fairly determined through written submissions, then the law should permit it, and that's a practical reform.
There is another element in the bill dealing with road transport contractors and the proposed high-income threshold, and the coalition has an open mind about the challenges facing owner-drivers and the transport contractors. But, with this section of it, we do believe that further scrutiny is required. Stakeholders themselves have expressed mixed views.
That is why the provisions warrant closer examination through Senate committee processes. These issues are all worthy of consideration. Most of them are very sensible reforms.
But the next bit is where it descends into abject nonsense. The most controversial part of this bill is not those Fair Work Commission reforms that I spoke about. It's the other provisions, and they represent a fundamental change.
Currently, the Fair Work Act protects against discrimination based on whether a business has particular workplace instruments or enterprise agreements. The government now proposes an exemption to that. That exemption would permit Commonwealth agencies to preference businesses with particular kinds of enterprise agreements in relation to procurement.
Now, let's call this what it is: a deliberate legislative pathway for industrial relations arrangements to become a factor in Commonwealth procurement. Procurement should be about value for money, and value for money for the taxpayer should be based on these principles: value for money, capability, performance, delivery and compliance with the law. That's what taxpayers expect and what businesses expect, and it's what governments should deliver.
It shouldn't be based on whether a business has negotiated a union-covered enterprise agreement or not. That shouldn't be a deciding factor in the ability to compete for government work. This is particularly relevant for regional businesses and regional projects, because of what this will mean for really good regional projects.
An example is the Shepparton to Melbourne rail line, stage 3 of which was 80 per cent funded, to the tune of $320 million, by the previous coalition government. I'm still waiting for it to finish, but maybe the Allan government can answer as to why it hasn't been finished yet. That's Commonwealth funding.
If regional businesses that don't have certain types of enterprise bargaining agreements with unions can't compete for that work, then we've really lost something in this country. Some of these smaller businesses have wonderful relations with their employees, their workers. They all live in the same town, so they all want these businesses to work.
They all want to see the infrastructure that is being funded. Now they can't compete for that work, because of the types of industrial relations enterprise bargaining agreements that they have. It really is a kick in the guts for smaller regional companies, and the Commonwealth should not be picking winners and losers based on industrial relations preferences.
The government argues that these powers merely create an option, but the legislation goes further than creating an option. The provisions extend beyond the primary contractor. They can flow down supply chains.
A subcontractor may face pressure because the head contractor seeks to satisfy procurement requirements, and that pressure can cascade through the multiple layers of commercial relationships. Today it might be a preference. Tomorrow it might become an expectation.
Eventually, it risks becoming a de facto requirement. That's why businesses are concerned and why industry groups are concerned, and it's why we are concerned. The unions have a lot of influence in this country.
Some unions—and I do say 'some unions'—have been shown to be less than worthy of that influence that they have in this country. I'm a Victorian, and recent events in Victoria have demonstrated why parliament should proceed cautiously whenever access to work becomes linked to obtaining the 'right'—the correct—industrial relations arrangements. The Watson report has exposed deeply troubling allegations regarding corruption and misconduct within the Victorian CFMEU construction branch.
There is an estimate that that has cost the taxpayer an extra $15 billion. I note that the Victorian Premier has disputed that, but when pressed last week on 7.30 with, 'What do you think the number is?', she absolutely refused to answer. If she's saying it's not $15 billion, then how much is it?
The lesson is not that enterprise agreements are inherently wrong. The lesson is that whenever market access becomes dependent on obtaining a preferred industrial relations agreement serious risks emerge. There are risks of coercion, risks of exclusion, risks of inflated costs—inflated costs for the taxpayer, and that's who we all should be working for.
They work really hard to earn that money and pay those taxes, and we should treat that money with the respect that it deserves. There are also risks of corruption, and that should concern every member of this parliament. The Commonwealth should not be creating incentives that move us further in that direction.
We could learn from Queensland, and I say that as a proud Victorian. The former best practice industry conditions policy sought to embed industrial relations outcomes into government procurement. The Queensland government ultimately abandoned that policy.
Why? It did because of concerns about cost pressures, project delivery and market distortions. The lesson is straightforward.
Governments should focus on outcomes. Projects should be awarded to businesses that can deliver. Many businesses in regional Australia that have different industrial relations agreements are fantastic at delivering because they know the projects and they know the communities they're dealing with in many cases.
It shouldn't just be businesses that simply satisfy an industrial relations preference. What is industry saying about this? It's not just the coalition raising concerns.
Industry stakeholders from across the economy have expressed strong reservations. Business groups have warned that public contracts should be awarded on merit, not on industrial affiliation. Builders have warned about impacts on small business.
Industry associations have warned about reduced competition, and we know what reduced competition leads to. Others have warned that these changes undermine the principle of freedom of association. It's not a niche concern; it's a broad concern.
The coalition believes that this parliament can do two things at once. We should be able to support the sensible Fair Work Commission reforms. Many of them are contained in this legislation.
But we should be able to reject the flawed procurement amendments. The Fair Work Commission reforms and Commonwealth procurement for certain types of industrial relations don't have anything to do with each other, and they shouldn't be in the same bill. So the government should separate these measures and bring forward the Fair Work Commission reforms as a standalone package.
We can support them and we can get those important reforms. I congratulate the government on coming up with those reforms. We could get those through.
But don't use those reforms as a cover for industrial relations changes that risk distorting procurement, reducing competition and increasing costs for taxpayers. The coalition will move amendments to remove those procurement bargaining provisions to allow the parliament to deal with the Fair Work Commission reforms on their merits, and then we can debate as to whether the Commonwealth should be saying: 'Well, you've got a certain type of EBA with the unions; you can have this Commonwealth project.
But whilst you treat your workers absolutely fairly and pay them well and work with them, you don't have that type of EBA, so we're not going to give you any chance to participate in a Commonwealth contract.' That's not the way Australia should work. If the government refuses to separate these issues, the coalition cannot support this bill in its current form.