ACT review of $200K Secure Local Jobs Code could change HR certification rules

HR leaders whose organisations bid for ACT government work have a material compliance stake in this review. The current rule is simple but operationally burdensome: any contract over $200,000 requires a certificate that your firm complies with industrial laws and allows union representation. If the code is renamed, restructured, or scrapped, internal HR processes for certification, union access, and procurement pre-qualification will need to be rewritten.

The ACT government has formally opened a preliminary consultation on the future of its Secure Local Jobs Code, and the first option under consideration is a name change. According to reporting by Jasper Lindell, a discussion paper put to the code's advisory council notes that the title is 'causing confusion about its purpose and operation' and asks whether dropping the word 'local' would better reflect the scheme's purpose, scope and operation. That proposal may appear cosmetic, but it lands at a pivotal moment. The code is under political and legal pressure after the Integrity Commission made findings of serious corrupt conduct over the involvement of the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Union in a school upgrade procurement process. The ACT government is therefore not just soft-launching a rebrand; it is testing whether the underlying procurement certification model can survive in its current form.

“

The current rule is simple but operationally burdensome: any contract over $200,000 requires a certificate that your firm complies with industrial laws and allows union representation.

The Secure Local Jobs Code was introduced in 2018 and imposes a distinctive compliance requirement on businesses seeking ACT government work. Firms being awarded government contracts worth more than $200,000 must hold a certificate showing that they comply with industrial laws and allow union representation for their employees. In practice, this means procurement eligibility is tied not only to price and capability but also to a position on union access and workplace relations. The advisory council has now been asked to comment on whether the code's objectives remain appropriate and whether there is enough independence from the procurement process. That framing suggests the review will examine whether the scheme's certification function is sufficiently separated from union influence and whether the threshold, scope and enforcement mechanisms remain defensible.

The context is politically charged. The Canberra Liberals have called for the code to be abolished as part of an effort to remove union influence from procurement. Deputy Chief Minister Rachel Stephen-Smith, who led the introduction of the code, is now associated with a scheme facing hostile scrutiny from the opposition and from integrity findings that have already implicated a powerful construction union. A possible name change is one response to a legitimacy problem, but it is unlikely to satisfy critics who view the code as structurally compromised. At the same time, the government's request for alternative names and its questions about independence indicate that more than terminology is on the table.

For legal and regulatory observers, the review raises substantive questions about administrative design. A certification scheme that conditions public contracts on union representation occupies contested legal ground, especially when the union named in integrity findings is the same entity that benefits from the representation requirement. The discussion paper's emphasis on independence from procurement could lead to changes in who assesses certificates, how disputes are handled, and whether the scheme's objectives are restated in a way that narrows or broadens its application. Any eventual legislative amendment would need to pass the ACT Legislative Assembly, where the government's willingness to preserve, reform or abolish the code will be tested.