A Commission of Inquiry is now asking the construction industry a direct question: does Queensland need a unified code of practice, and if so, what should it actually contain?

The Commission of Inquiry into the CFMEU and Misconduct in the Construction Industry released a discussion paper on 31 March 2026 examining the potential reintroduction of an amended building and construction code in Queensland. It is an open call for feedback from anyone with a stake in how the state’s construction industry operates.

For builders, contractors, subcontractors and trades, this is worth paying attention to. A formal code, if introduced, would set out the rules that govern how work is procured, performed and enforced on Queensland building projects.

What Is a Construction Industry Code?

A construction industry code is a set of enforceable standards that applies to contractors and participants in the building sector. It sits alongside existing legislation and typically covers workplace conduct, employment obligations and how projects are managed.

Queensland has had codes before. The 2000 Code of Practice for the Building and Construction Industry was in place for years, and was later supported by implementation guidelines updated in 2013. More recently, the 2025 Queensland Code was updated in March last year following the state government’s suspension of the Best Practice Industry Conditions in November 2024.

The current code is already under review as the Queensland Procurement Policy 2026, which came into effect on 1 January this year, begins to take hold.

The Commission’s discussion paper now goes further, canvassing whether a new, more comprehensive code should be developed from the ground up and applied across the industry.

What Could the New Code Cover?

Based on the history of Queensland and Commonwealth codes, and the issues flagged in the discussion paper, a new code could address a broad range of areas.

The paper draws on the Queensland Productivity Commission’s recommendations, which flagged that such a code could require contractors to remove unnecessary productivity-limiting clauses from enterprise bargaining agreements. It could also address the use of jump-up clauses, where EBA conditions that are agreed at the head contractor level are passed through to subcontractors who had no say in negotiating them. The right of entry provisions, and how workplace health and safety procedures are used on construction sites, are also in scope.

More broadly, previous codes have dealt with independent contractor arrangements, sham contracting, collusive tendering, site security, drug and alcohol testing, dispute resolution and security of payments. Any or all of these could find their way into a refreshed Queensland code.

The paper also raises the question of sanctions, including the possibility of excluding non-compliant businesses from public building and construction work. That is a significant lever.

Where Has This Come From?

The Commission of Inquiry was established in response to serious concerns about conduct within the CFMEU and broader misconduct across Queensland’s construction sector. Its terms of reference include examining whether law or policy changes are needed.

The discussion paper on a code of practice is one of several streams of work the Commission is pursuing. It sits within a larger conversation about how Queensland’s construction industry is governed, how industrial relations operate on site, and whether the current frameworks are fit for purpose.

The Queensland Government has indicated in principle support for developing a new whole-of-government code, stating that its development and enforcement would be subject to the outcomes of the Wood Commission of Inquiry. If that process leads to a new code, the current timeline points to implementation in early 2027.

Why This Matters for Builders and Trades

A new code of practice is not just a paperwork exercise. If it lands with real enforcement mechanisms attached, it shapes how projects are tendered, how subcontractors are engaged, and what obligations sit on everyone in the supply chain.

For small to medium builders, the detail matters. A code that targets head contractors alone will land differently to one that extends obligations down to smaller operators and trades. The question of scope is one of the Commission’s explicit consultation points.

The jump-up clause issue is particularly relevant to subcontractors. If a code restricts pass-through conditions, it could mean that EBA obligations negotiated between a principal contractor and a union can no longer be imposed on subcontractors who are not party to that agreement. That has practical implications for pricing, workforce planning and how subbies structure their own teams.

Security of payments is another area where a code could interact with existing legislation. Queensland already has the Building Industry Fairness (Security of Payment) Act in place, but a code that reinforces payment standards and creates clearer consequences for non-compliance could provide an additional layer of protection for smaller operators who are currently most exposed to slow or withheld payment.

Sham contracting provisions are also worth watching. The misclassification of employees as independent contractors has been a persistent issue across Australian construction. A code with clear standards and enforcement teeth could shift the risk calculation for those who engage in the practice.

The Code vs Legislation Debate

The Commission is also seeking views on whether a code is the right instrument at all, compared to primary legislation or regulation.

Codes tend to be more flexible. They can be updated without going through the full legislative process, and they can be tailored to specific industry circumstances more easily than an Act of Parliament. On the other hand, they can also be softer in their enforcement. A code that cannot be readily enforced is not worth much.

The discussion paper invites comment on the costs and benefits of a code versus other mechanisms. That is a real question, and the construction industry has skin in the game when it comes to the answer.

What Happens at the Commonwealth Level?

It is worth noting that Queensland would not be operating in isolation. The Commonwealth has a history of building codes as well, including the Building Code 2013 under the Fair Work (Building Industry) Act and more recently the Code for the Tendering and Performance of Building Work under the Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2016.

The interaction between a new Queensland code and Commonwealth frameworks is something the industry would need to understand clearly. Duplication, or worse, contradiction between state and federal requirements, creates compliance headaches that ultimately fall on builders and contractors to navigate.

What Builders Should Do Now

The Commission is actively seeking feedback, and the window to contribute is open now.

The Commission has been explicit about the questions it wants answered. Those include: whether Queensland should have a code at all, what should be in it, what the right enforcement mechanisms look like, and what timeline makes sense. If the construction industry does not engage with this process, decisions will be made by those who did.

Industry associations are likely to coordinate submissions, but individual builders and trades can also provide feedback directly. The Commission’s phone line is 1800 810 933, available Monday to Friday 8 am to 9 pm and weekends 8 am to 4 pm. Submissions can also be sent to [email protected] or by post to GPO Box 3102, Brisbane QLD 4001.

The full discussion paper is available on the Commission’s website.

The Bigger Picture

A new Queensland code of practice, if it lands well, has the potential to create clearer rules for everyone operating in the sector. Clarity around employment obligations, payment standards and site conduct reduces disputes, lowers compliance risk and creates a more level playing field.

Done poorly, it adds bureaucracy without adding protection, and creates obligations that only well-resourced businesses can absorb while smaller operators are left exposed.

The Commission appears to be asking the right questions. The quality of the answers will depend, in part, on who chooses to respond.

Author: TGB Editorial