Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Bill 2026; Second Reading

Campbell supported the bill, describing it as practical reform to ensure the workplace relations system remains fair and efficient. Campbell argued the measures help the Fair Work Commission manage its workload by dealing with frivolous applications and streamlining bargaining processes. Campbell emphasised that the bill does not require businesses to have enterprise agreements but allows the Commonwealth to consider them in procurement decisions.

Rebello opposed the bill, arguing the government was using sensible Fair Work Commission reforms as cover for controversial procurement changes. Rebello claimed the legislation allows the Commonwealth to discriminate against employers not covered by union agreements, undermining freedom of association. Rebello cited warnings from the Business Council of Australia and the Ai Group that the bill risks undermining value for money and could lead to cost overruns for taxpayers.

French supported the bill, highlighting reforms to help the Fair Work Commission resolve disputes more efficiently, including changes to jurisdictional objections and vexatious claims. French argued the procurement provisions allow the government to promote secure jobs and fair conditions without imposing obligations on every case. French also noted the bill sets a distinct high-income limit for road transport contractors to better reflect their operating costs.

Jarrett supported the bill, linking it to the government's broader commitment to workplace fairness and job security. Jarrett detailed administrative measures to streamline the Fair Work Commission, including delegating powers and allowing matters to be decided on papers with consent. Jarrett emphasised that the procurement provisions do not mandate preference for enterprise agreements but allow it where appropriate, alongside existing value-for-money requirements.

Chaney supported the Fair Work Commission efficiency reforms and the road transport threshold but opposed the procurement preference provisions. Chaney argued that allowing discrimination based on enterprise agreements undermines merit-based public spending and raises corruption risks, particularly in the construction sector. Chaney moved an amendment calling on the government to remove the measures that allow discrimination against businesses based on their industrial arrangements.

Haines seconded Chaney's amendment, supporting the commission reforms and road transport changes. Haines expressed concern that the procurement provisions could force employers to make agreements with unions to secure contracts, raising integrity issues. Haines argued that public spending should be based on merit and value for money, not on industrial arrangements, and called for the removal of these measures.

Garland argued the bill builds on previous workplace reforms to ensure the Fair Work Commission remains efficient despite rising workloads from AI tools and paid agents. Garland highlighted measures to dismiss frivolous applications and allow matters to be decided on papers, which would save time and money for all parties. Garland also defended the provision allowing the Commonwealth to preference enterprise agreements in procurement, stating it supports secure jobs and fair conditions without mandating union coverage, particularly noting a separate approach for the construction industry.

Spender supported the practical reforms to the Fair Work Commission, including powers to dismiss vexatious claims and manage AI-driven caseload surges. However, she opposed the procurement provisions, arguing they create a legal basis for the government to favour businesses with union-backed enterprise agreements over others. Spender cited the Watson report on corruption in the Victorian construction industry and the failure of Queensland's Best Practice Industry Conditions Scheme as evidence that such measures increase costs and reduce productivity without adequate safeguards.

Ambihaipahar drew on personal legal experience to support the bill, emphasising that the Fair Work Commission reforms protect the system's integrity against bad-faith and AI-generated claims. Ambihaipahar argued that removing the prohibition on preferencing enterprise agreements in procurement allows the government to use its purchasing power to support fair wages and secure jobs. Ambihaipahar also highlighted the bill's provisions for a revised income limit for road transport contractors, recognising their unique cost structures.

Webster argued that while the Fair Work Commission reforms were sensible, the procurement provisions failed a productivity test and risked lowering economic efficiency. Webster claimed the bill would allow unions to influence the allocation of taxpayer money, potentially increasing costs for major projects like Snowy 2.0 and disadvantaging small businesses that do not have enterprise agreements. Webster cited concerns about CFMEU corruption and the negative impact of similar schemes in Victoria and Queensland.

Briskey supported the bill as a continuation of efforts to undo insecure work practices and protect workers' rights. Briskey argued that using government purchasing power to promote enterprise agreements ensures taxpayers fund businesses that treat workers fairly. Briskey also highlighted the specific benefits for truck drivers, including a new high-income threshold that reflects their actual costs, and praised the Fair Work Commission reforms for reducing delays without stripping worker protections.

O'Brien stated that while the Fair Work Commission reforms were warranted, the procurement provisions represented a hidden agenda to entrench union-controlled enterprise agreements. O'Brien argued this would create an anticompetitive environment and force businesses, including those in supply chains, to adopt union agreements to secure government contracts. O'Brien called for the bill to be split so the procedural reforms could pass while the procurement implications were properly examined.

Jordan-Baird supported the bill for making the workplace system fairer and more efficient, particularly for workers in her electorate. Jordan-Baird highlighted the new high-income threshold for road transport contractors, which addresses the unique financial pressures faced by truck drivers. Jordan-Baird also defended the procurement changes, arguing they remove barriers to supporting employers who negotiate in good faith, and noted the bill's support for the National Construction Industry Forum and CFMEU administration reforms.

Wallace supported the Fair Work Commission reforms, including changes to jurisdictional objections and vexatious litigant powers, but strongly opposed the procurement provisions. Wallace argued these changes would allow the Commonwealth to prefer contractors with CFMEU-approved enterprise agreements, effectively reinstating 'no ticket, no start' practices. Wallace cited evidence of corruption in the Victorian construction sector and warned that the bill would increase costs for taxpayers and disadvantage non-unionised businesses.

Aldred supported the Fair Work Commission reforms to address backlogs caused by AI-assisted claims but opposed the enterprise bargaining procurement changes. Aldred expressed deep concern about the CFMEU's links to organised crime and corruption, citing the Watson report and recent inquiries. Aldred argued that the bill risks allowing corrupt practices to infiltrate Commonwealth procurement, costing taxpayers billions and undermining government integrity.

Birrell supported reforms to streamline Fair Work Commission processes, including handling jurisdictional objections and delegating procedural powers, but opposed bundling these with procurement changes. Birrell argued that allowing preference for union-covered agreements in government contracts would distort markets and disadvantage regional businesses. Birrell cited the Watson report on CFMEU corruption and warned that such policies could lead to coercion and inflated costs for taxpayers.

Venning endorsed administrative fixes for the Fair Work Commission backlog but condemned the procurement provisions as an ideological agenda favouring unions. Venning highlighted that the bill creates an exemption allowing discrimination against employers without union agreements, which he argued violates freedom of association. Venning referenced the Watson report findings of pay-to-play corruption and warned that the policy would cascade down supply chains, excluding lawful small businesses.

McCormack criticised the bill for lacking government defence and linked it to the abolition of the Australian Building and Construction Commission, which he viewed as a necessary watchdog. McCormack cited the Watson report's findings of $15 billion in misappropriated funds and described the CFMEU's influence as detrimental to infrastructure delivery. McCormack argued that the legislation would increase costs and hinder small business survival in the construction and transport sectors.

Violi supported measures addressing the surge in Fair Work Commission applications, partly driven by artificial intelligence, but opposed the procurement preferences for union agreements. Violi read a letter from a small business owner highlighting financial pressures and outlined coalition policies to support small enterprises, including asset deductions and regulatory simplification. Violi warned that the bill aligned with a CFMEU agenda that had already influenced significant government policy changes.

Kennedy supported reforms to expedite Fair Work Commission dispute resolution but opposed the procurement provisions as cynical bundling. Kennedy argued that preferring union-covered agreements would disadvantage small and medium enterprises in his electorate and reduce competition. Kennedy warned that the policy would increase government spending and tax burdens, citing local infrastructure delays and the negative impact on tradies and subcontractors.

Small supported the Fair Work Commission efficiency measures but characterised the procurement changes as a Trojan horse for union preference. Small argued that the bill undermined freedom of association by allowing discrimination against businesses without union agreements. Small cited the Watson report and Queensland's abandoned best practice industry conditions policy as warnings of potential corruption and cost inflation.

Batt supported practical Fair Work Commission reforms but opposed the procurement provisions, describing them as a revival of Queensland's controversial best practice industry conditions policy. Batt cited the Watson report's findings of corruption and warned that the bill would create a pay-to-play culture in government contracting. Batt called for the bill to be split to allow separate scrutiny of the procurement changes.

Bell supported reforms to address the Fair Work Commission workload crisis, including handling vexatious litigants and determining matters on the papers. Bell opposed the procurement provisions, arguing they allowed the Commonwealth to preference union-covered agreements, thereby undermining freedom of association and value for money. Bell cited the Watson report and Queensland's experience with cost blowouts as evidence of the risks associated with such policies.