New laws targeting union-enabled misconduct on construction sites have cleared Queensland Parliament, with the opposition voting against the reforms.
Queensland construction sites have a new legal framework for how workplace safety information is accessed and used, after the Crisafulli Government’s Electrical Safety and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2025 passed Parliament.
That vote is now the central political flashpoint around the legislation. But for builders and trades operating in Queensland, the practical question is simpler: what do these changes actually mean on site?
What the laws change
The core of the reform is a repeal of information sharing provisions introduced under the previous government.
Under those provisions, entry permit holders and health and safety representatives could request enforcement and compliance information directly from the workplace safety regulator. That included improvement notices, prohibition notices and non-disturbance notices.
The Crisafulli Government argued these powers gave union officials a mechanism to access sensitive regulatory information in ways that could be used for coercion or campaign activity against employers, rather than for genuine safety purposes.
The new laws remove those information access rights. The government’s position is that regulators should operate independently, not as a conduit for factional interests.
The bill also strengthens electrical safety provisions, moving the power to issue directions prohibiting unsafe electrical equipment from regulation into the primary Electrical Safety Act 2002. That shift is largely technical but signals the government’s intent to give key safety protections a more durable legislative foundation.
The context: a Commission of Inquiry mid-stream
These laws did not pass in isolation. Queensland is currently running a Commission of Inquiry into the CFMEU following a period of sustained public scrutiny over allegations of violence, coercion and intimidation within parts of the union.
The federal government also placed the CFMEU’s construction division into administration in 2024, a step that has no modern precedent in Australian industrial relations.
The Queensland inquiry is still under way. Its findings have not yet been delivered. The Crisafulli Government has moved ahead with these reforms while that process continues, arguing the case for change is already sufficiently established.
Deputy Premier Jarrod Bleijie framed the legislation in direct terms, saying the old information sharing laws were a gift to militant unions looking for new ways to bully and intimidate workers and businesses, and that the regulator should not be used to facilitate orchestrated campaigns against lawful workplaces.
Why Labor voted no
Labor’s opposition to the bill has attracted significant attention, particularly given the broader climate around the CFMEU.
The government’s messaging has been direct: a vote against these laws is a vote for the status quo that enabled misconduct on Queensland construction sites.
Labor has not publicly outlined a detailed position on why the specific information sharing provisions should be preserved. The standard argument for such provisions is that they assist health and safety representatives in doing their jobs effectively and holding employers accountable for compliance. Whether that justification holds weight in the current context is a question Labor has left largely unanswered.
What is clear is that the vote has created a visible political divide at a moment when the construction industry’s relationship with union governance is already under close examination.
What it means for builders
For builders and contractors operating in Queensland, the immediate practical effect is straightforward.
Entry permit holders can no longer request compliance notices and enforcement information from the regulator directly. That pathway is closed.
That does not change standard rights of entry for union officials on Queensland construction sites. Officials with appropriate permits can still enter workplaces for legitimate purposes, including genuine safety inspections and investigations under the Work Health and Safety Act.
What changes is the information channel. Builders should not expect this reform alone to resolve every tension on site. The CFMEU Commission of Inquiry is still running, and further structural changes may follow its findings.
In the meantime, the electrical safety amendments are the more immediately practical element of this bill for most in the trade. The move to enshrine prohibition directions in primary legislation provides a clearer and more stable legal framework around unsafe electrical equipment, which matters for principal contractors, site supervisors and electricians managing compliance obligations on live projects.
The broader pattern
Queensland is not operating in a vacuum here. Victoria has had its own sustained conversation about CFMEU conduct on major construction projects. Nationally, the administration of the union’s construction division has reshaped how governments across the country are thinking about the relationship between union governance and site culture.
The pattern across jurisdictions is consistent: where evidence of systematic misconduct has emerged, governments have moved to limit the structural conditions that enabled it. Queensland’s information sharing repeal fits that pattern.
Whether these reforms will be sufficient is a different question. The Commission of Inquiry will ultimately inform how deep and sustained the structural changes need to be.
For now, Queensland’s construction industry has a new set of rules governing what information union officials can access through the regulator, a Labor opposition that voted against them, and an inquiry still in progress that will shape what comes next.
Builders would be wise to stay across both.
More CFMEU news: The Man Who Took On the CFMEU Has Resigned. What Changed, and What Comes Next.
0 Comments