Senate Education and Employment Legislation Committee, , 2:52:32 to 2:59:16
Senators question the scope of the proposed standards, including their application to state-delivered projects and defense works. Officials explain that no decisions have been made regarding whether the standards will be mandatory or how they will be enforced.
Topics: Workplace relations, Infrastructure
Speakers: Senator Matt O'Sullivan, Sarah Godden, Greg Manning, Senator Jess Walsh, Speaker 20, Senator Marielle Smith
Yes, Senator Judah move to the Fair Work Commission at 12, and at the moment I don't have another Senator seeking the call.
Okay, I'll just get a few more on this. Um is it correct that the standards could apply to defence of state works and to state developed uh being delivered projects funded through Commonwealth Infrastructure Payments?
Senator, these questions are all open. So as I mentioned, the government didn't propose a predetermined scope for the construction standards. Um so these were very much uh matters on which we sought feedback through the discussion paper.
So there is then therefore a consideration as to whether there'll be a threshold maybe as to whether it would be open,
um Senator, yes.
Okay, thanks. Um will the standards be mandatory or voluntary will they be in legislation, regulation, accreditation or contract conditions?
So again, Senator, the government didn't propose a predetermined uh model for the construction standards, and uh the government has said that the standards should be focused on the areas where they can have the most impact but don't create unnecessary regulatory or administrative burden, but um all questions about scope model application were open under the discussion paper, and we sought feedback on that, no decisions have been made.
When then will the decision be made?
It's a matter for government, Senator.
Minister and well what I can um tell you, Senator, is that this is an important body of work that is about raising standards in the construction uh industry uh in something that our government takes um very seriously uh and uh the National Construction Industry Forum is doing um important um work together. Uh and uh the work on the draft charter uh and the standards are important um steps forward. Um it is important that the consultation occurs and the officials have been outlining uh that consultation process and the government is still consulting on the reforms.
Thank you for that answer, Minister. But my question was when? Have we got a date or is that something you'll take on notice? When when does the second stage of the consultation start?
Uh no decisions have been made about that, Senator. Is Ms. Platt's outlined um we're still waiting on a couple of submissions to come in, but uh even for those submissions received um that was less than a week ago for the majority of them. So we're currently working through uh the submissions in order to provide advice to government.
Okay. Are you in a position to tell me uh who will be enforcing the the standards?
That was also a question that was live in the discussion paper, Senator.
So the Master Builders warn that uh builders could be left complying with multiple and overlapping procurement requirements. Will there be a single impact analysis of these uh two different schemes or various schemes?
And Ray James I think it's a little bit uh early, Senator, but generally uh you would have an impact analysis for a discrete decision.
So what would happen if a business supplies to both construction and uh non-construction services?
I mean that's something we'll we're working through with the Department of Finance as you can imagine. I think in the earlier answer we spoke about the supply code, which is administered by the Department of Finance. So in relation to the two separate processes, noting that they are separate, so the construction standards applying construction secure jobs uh framework won't. Um I imagine if you had uh a business that is wanting to participate in separate tenders for separate for separate uh matters, then they will follow the process that the agency puts in place in relation to that tender. So it would be the same now. So for example, if someone was tendering twice now, then they'll be they'll be faced with two lots of tender requirements, two lots of tender documents, and they'll they will tend they'll they'll tend to according to those the requirements of that particular procurement.
But it's not going to operate in isolation. There's obviously going to be an interplay. So do you ever do a uh does it does a RIS ever look at sort of the it's interplay across various gone beyond gone beyond my above
your understanding of the impact analysis framework at the moment, said I know there are certainly eligibility requirements that that indicate when you have to do an impact analysis and sort
of left hand not talking to the right, like you know, is are we going to make sure that there's clarity and consistency?
I mean what I would say for both of these is proportionality is is a stated aim for both of them. So they each have separate aims overall, um, will be dealt with separately and are intended to deal with separate industries, but we'd be very mindful in how it all lands together that it is as proportionate as it possibly can be, and that was a factor that was raised in the, for example, in the consultation that we've been referring to about the uh code, potential code for construction.
That's right. So the discussion paper set out the current you know ecosystem or in system for the construction industry in terms of how it has multiple parts and their shared responsibility between different jurisdictions, but what the discussion paper and the government has announced is that it is not seeking to add any unnecessary duplication when it comes to regulation and administrative burden and as part of the discussion process uh there was specific questions that that sought you know views on uh any potential duplication or overlap and that there was going to be a concerted effort as part of any design to manage those um those different layers.
Okay.