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

Continued the debate

Senator Hume opposed the bill, arguing that it bundled sensible Fair Work Commission workload reforms with controversial procurement provisions that allowed the government to preference businesses with union-backed enterprise agreements. Hume claimed this bundling was a tactic to force through a union agenda without proper scrutiny, citing the Watson report on CFMEU corruption as evidence of the risks involved. Hume stated that the Coalition supported the commission reforms but rejected the procurement changes, which she argued undermined value-for-money principles and introduced corruption risks into supply chains. Hume noted that the Coalition had introduced its own bill containing only the commission reforms and moved amendments to remove Part 9 from the government's legislation.

Government response

Senator Polley supported the bill, describing it as a practical measure to build a fairer and more productive economy by improving Fair Work Commission efficiency and supporting good-faith bargaining. Polley argued that the procurement provisions were a sensible step to ensure public spending supported decent labour standards and secure jobs, operating alongside existing value-for-money requirements. Polley highlighted specific reforms, including allowing the commission to resolve disputes without formal hearings in certain cases, delegating functions to staff, and setting a distinct income limit for road transport contractors. Polley also noted the bill included administrative measures for the CFMEU administrator and supported tripartite advisory bodies.

Opposition response

Senator Kovacic opposed the bill, reiterating that the Coalition supported the Fair Work Commission reforms but rejected the procurement changes as a cover for union interests. Kovacic argued that the procurement provisions risked embedding corruption and excluding lawful businesses, citing the negative impacts of similar policies in Victoria and Queensland. Kovacic claimed the government was hiding the procurement changes from scrutiny by bundling them with unrelated reforms and refusing to separate the bill. Kovacic referenced the Watson report to highlight the dangers of concentrating power over market access in the hands of unions and called for the bill to be split so the commission reforms could pass independently.