30 October 2026 | Issue 4
Muscat Tanzer’s weekly update on developments affecting construction, infrastructure, procurement and government.
Queensland: industrial relations Bill — submissions close Monday
The Industrial Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 remains before a parliamentary committee. Written submissions close at noon on 2 November; the committee report is due on 27 November. The Bill proposes changes to public sector industrial relations, including bargaining, protected action and site access. It has not been enacted.
Why it matters: State agencies and councils have a near-term opportunity to identify operational consequences for existing agreements, bargaining plans and access protocols.
NSW: council labour hire Bill moves to the upper house
The Local Government Amendment (Labour Hire) Bill 2026 passed the Legislative Assembly on 21 October and was introduced in the Legislative Council on 22 October. It remains there awaiting the second reading. The Bill would require councils entering or amending labour hire contracts to be satisfied that supplied workers receive at least the remuneration payable for comparable council employment. It is not yet law.
Why it matters: Councils and suppliers can map upcoming renewals and the information needed to compare remuneration, while allowing for amendments before passage.
Victoria: major-project labour hire regulations made
The Labour Hire Licensing Amendment (Construction) Regulations 2026 were made on 27 October and commence on 18 January 2027. On public sector construction projects estimated at $50 million or more, they prescribe labour supply for crane operations, traffic management, security and concreting, including work adjacent to a site. The text includes specific exclusions.
Why it matters: Government principals, head contractors and affected subcontractors should check which arrangements require a licence, review supplier registers and plan applications before commencement. The exact statutory definitions and exclusions matter.
WA: further local government reform proposed
The Local Government Amendment and Repeal Bill 2026 was introduced on 14 October and remains at Assembly second reading. It proposes four-year whole-council elections from 2031, easier voluntary boundary changes and amalgamations, privacy protections, and administrative changes affecting fees, rates and audit committees. These are proposals.
Why it matters: Councils should assess the governance and financial-administration changes against their current processes, particularly if contemplating boundary changes or shared arrangements. No implementation change is required merely because the Bill was introduced.
Commonwealth: KPMG procurement restriction extended
Following its independent review, Finance’s procurement policy note says KPMG has agreed to cease new engagements with entities subject to the Commonwealth Procurement Rules until 28 February 2027. Officials should not enter contracts involving KPMG for approaches to market closing before 1 March 2027, including panel engagements and KPMG subcontracting. The note narrows exemptions to approved variations or extensions of existing contracts and continuing use of specified proprietary products; it recommends a consistent approach for other entities.
Why it matters: Commonwealth buyers should check proposed teams and subcontractors before award, record any exemption and keep supplier due diligence proportionate and fair. The review’s broader reform recommendations remain under consideration, rather than current rules.
Commonwealth: ten-business-day supplier payment terms
Finance’s updated policy note requires non-corporate Commonwealth entities to pay suppliers within 10 business days for all invoice forms from 1 January 2027. Existing terms apply until then; corporate entities are strongly encouraged to adopt the policy.
Why it matters: Commonwealth clients should update finance workflows and tender or contract templates before commencement. Contractors should check payment clauses in new procurements and distinguish this policy from their separate rights under construction security of payment laws.
Muscat Tanzer advises government and industry on construction, infrastructure, procurement, probity and local government matters. This update is general information; application depends on the facts and governing documents.
Director
Muscat Tanzer
Director
Muscat Tanzer
A supplier warns that its preferred delivery slot will disappear unless the organisation commits this week. An evaluation panel member recognises a former colleague in a tender submission. An incumbent offers to write the specification for a replacement contract it intends to compete for.
Each situation raises a different probity risk and requires a clear response.
For councils and Queensland Government agencies, probity becomes practical when relationships, information and commercial pressures intersect with public decision-making.
The task is to recognise those risks early, establish appropriate boundaries and preserve a fair process that the organisation can explain.
Why it matters
Suppliers invest time and money in competing for government work. They need confidence that their information will be protected and their offers assessed fairly.
Public officers also need processes that support informed commercial judgment. Clear arrangements for conflicts, supplier contact and approvals help teams obtain useful information and make timely decisions.
Queensland’s Crime and Corruption Commission emphasises the importance of identifying, documenting, managing and monitoring conflicts. A declaration alone does not complete that task.
Probity should therefore be built into procurement planning and maintained through evaluation, negotiation and contract management.
Conflicts can arise from financial interests, personal relationships, outside employment or other circumstances that affect—or could reasonably be perceived to affect—a person’s impartiality.
Consider an evaluator whose close relative works for a tenderer. Relevant questions include the relative’s role, their involvement in the bid and whether the contract could benefit them. Those circumstances should be assessed before deciding whether, and on what terms, the evaluator may participate.
Declarations should cover everyone who can influence the process, including advisers and people preparing specifications or recommendations. Revisit them when tenderers become known and whenever circumstances change.
Depending on the risk, controls may include restricting access to information, removing a person from particular tasks, appointing another evaluator or excluding them from the procurement. Record who assessed the conflict, the reasons for the response and who will monitor compliance.
Councils and State agencies must apply the requirements relevant to their organisation and the person involved. Councillor conflicts, for example, engage specific statutory obligations. An employee’s conflict management process should not be assumed to satisfy those requirements.
Early market engagement can improve procurement planning. It can test capacity, identify unrealistic requirements and reveal alternative delivery methods.
That is particularly useful where demand for contractors, specialist skills or materials may affect delivery. Our first article discussed the Queensland Construction Portal as one source of broader market context.
Before engaging suppliers, decide:
Once a competitive process begins, use the nominated communication channel. Operational staff should know how to redirect questions rather than answering them informally.
Fair treatment does not require every conversation to be identical. It does require care where a response could give one participant an advantage. Information clarifying the organisation’s requirements may need to be shared with all relevant participants, while protecting suppliers’ confidential information and intellectual property.
Meetings, demonstrations and site visits should have a clear purpose and an appropriate record. Offers of gifts or hospitality should be dealt with under the applicable policy, with particular care during an active procurement.
An incumbent will often understand the organisation’s operations better than its competitors. That knowledge requires careful handling when planning a replacement contract.
Where the incumbent intends to compete, the organisation should generally decline an offer from it to write the specification. That involvement creates a substantial risk that requirements will favour its solution or that it will gain an information advantage. Those risks can be difficult to address through later review.
The organisation should retain responsibility for developing its requirements, using suitably qualified personnel or independent advisers whose conflicts have been assessed.
There is a practical distinction between obtaining factual information about the existing service and allowing a prospective bidder to design the next procurement.
An incumbent may need to provide asset records, service volumes, system information or operational data. Keep that assistance clearly defined and separate from decisions about future requirements and evaluation criteria.
Also identify information other bidders reasonably need to prepare informed offers. Subject to confidentiality and other legal restrictions, make that information available through the procurement process.
These steps help reduce avoidable incumbent advantages and support meaningful competition.
Urgency can be real. A failing asset, expiring service or limited manufacturing slot may require a prompt response.
It can also compress scrutiny. Statements such as “the price expires tomorrow” or “only we can deliver” should be tested against available evidence.
Ask what is driving the deadline, whether alternatives exist and what approvals are required. If an exception to the usual procurement process is proposed, establish that its requirements are met and record the supporting facts.
An urgent commercial deadline does not itself establish a lawful basis for bypassing procurement requirements.
Pressure may also arise internally. A preferred supplier, announced commencement date or request to accelerate delivery can influence how a team approaches the process. Officers should be able to identify the applicable requirements, explain the risks and refer decisions to the appropriate authority.
During evaluation and negotiation, assess requests to alter scope, waive requirements or accept late submissions against the governing rules and procurement documents. Seek advice where a proposed change could affect competition or the basis on which suppliers prepared their offers.
An undisclosed relationship, misdirected email or unauthorised supplier discussion requires prompt assessment. It does not necessarily mean the entire procurement must be abandoned.
Preserve relevant records, contain further disclosure or involvement where appropriate, and notify the responsible procurement or governance officer. Establish what happened, who received information and which decisions may have been affected.
Depending on the circumstances, responses may include revised conflict controls, clarification to participants, additional time, independent review or reconsideration of an affected evaluation step. Serious issues may require stronger action or reporting under applicable obligations.
Document the assessment and reasons for the response. A general assurance that “probity has been addressed” does not explain whether the issue has been resolved.
Independent probity advice can assist with complex, sensitive or contested decisions. Responsibility for the procurement remains with the organisation and its authorised decision-makers.
Five practical checks
Before the next significant procurement decision, ask:
These checks give teams a practical basis for making timely commercial decisions while maintaining fairness, accountability and public confidence.
How Muscat Tanzer can assist
Muscat Tanzer assists councils and government agencies with probity planning, conflict assessments, supplier engagement protocols and advice during procurement and negotiation. We help teams assess emerging issues and implement practical controls suited to the procurement’s complexity and risk.
In our next article, “Choosing the Supplier: Value for Money and a Decision You Can Explain”, we examine evaluation criteria, supplier capability and the reasons supporting an award decision.
Director
Muscat Tanzer
23 October 2026 | Issue 3
Muscat Tanzer’s weekly update on developments affecting construction, infrastructure, procurement and government.
Queensland: industrial relations reform before Parliament
The Industrial Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2026 was introduced on 14 October and referred to a parliamentary committee. It proposes changes to public sector bargaining and protected industrial action, and a fit-and-proper-person test for authorised officers of registered organisations. Queensland’s industrial relations framework principally covers State and local government employment.
Why it matters: State agencies and councils should review the proposed bargaining and site-access changes against current agreements and protocols. These are proposals, not current obligations; their effect depends on the Bill’s final form and commencement.
NSW: Local Jobs First Act receives assent
The Local Jobs First Act 2026 received assent on 19 October. It establishes a Local Jobs First Commissioner and provides for a policy addressing local goods and services, workers, skills and supplier conduct. The provisions requiring a local procurement policy and supplier plans await proclamation. The value or kind of procurement to which plans apply remains to be prescribed.
Why it matters: NSW State agencies and bidders should prepare to review tender schedules, evaluation criteria, supply-chain evidence and contract reporting when the policy and regulations are issued. Assent has not yet brought the policy and plan duties into force, and the Act itself does not fix a dollar threshold.
NSW: council labour hire proposal is now a Bill
The Local Government Amendment (Labour Hire) Bill 2026 was introduced on 14 October and remains before the Legislative Assembly. It would prohibit councils from entering into or amending a labour hire contract unless satisfied that supplied workers would receive at least the remuneration payable for comparable council employment. The proposed rule would extend to amendments of contracts entered before commencement.
Why it matters: Councils planning labour hire renewals or variations should consider what remuneration information they would need from suppliers and how to document their assessment. This advances the proposal noted in Issue 1, but no new requirement is yet in force.
WA: more time to comment on the Procurement Act
On 16 October, Western Australia extended the submission deadline for Part B of its Procurement Act 2020 review to 5 pm on 3 November. Part B examines the Act’s operation and effectiveness. Consultation on Part A, which concerned approach-to-market thresholds, has closed. The review has not changed the Act or the WA Procurement Rules.
Why it matters: Agencies and suppliers have more time to identify practical problems with the statutory framework, using examples from works and services procurements. Submissions should distinguish these from current tender-threshold questions.
Commonwealth: supplier ethics under renewed scrutiny
A Department of Finance policy note reminds Commonwealth officials to consider relevant supplier experience, past performance and unethical conduct when assessing value for money; document decisions; make proportionate enquiries; and monitor supplier behaviour during contracts. Finance also points to significant-event notification and Supplier Code clauses in Commonwealth contract resources. The note explains existing procurement obligations rather than creating a new exclusion rule.
Why it matters: Buyers should check that evaluation plans allow for fair, documented due diligence and that contract management addresses material conduct concerns. Suppliers should be ready to explain past performance and the controls behind their declarations.
Muscat Tanzer advises government and industry on construction, infrastructure, procurement, probity and local government matters. This update is general information; application depends on the facts and governing documents.
Director
Muscat Tanzer
Director
Muscat Tanzer
Article 1 in Muscat Tanzer’s series: Public Money, Sound Decisions — A Practical Guide to Government Procurement and Contracting
A service contract is nearing expiry. The incumbent is performing reasonably well, the operational team wants continuity, and funding is available. Someone suggests obtaining a fresh quotation and extending the arrangement.
Before approaching the supplier, several questions need answers. Is an extension available under the contract? Who can approve it? What is the value of the proposed commitment? Does the applicable procurement framework permit that approach? Would a different scope or process deliver a better outcome?
Similar questions arise when a council plans a community facility or a State agency commissions engineering services. An approved budget and a desired completion date are starting points. The organisation also needs to understand what it is buying, how it may buy it and whether the market can deliver.
Sound procurement begins with those decisions.
Why it matters
The Queensland Audit Office’s Local government 2025 report identified procurement and contract management weaknesses in more than 60% of councils as at 30 June 2025. It highlighted the need for stronger decision-making, oversight and management of conflicts of interest.
For State Government buyers, the Queensland Procurement Policy 2026 emphasises value for money alongside local opportunities, simpler processes, innovation and economic, environmental and social outcomes. These objectives need to inform procurement design and assessment.
The practical task is to connect the identified need, the market conditions, the procurement approach, the approval and the eventual contract.
Begin with a clear statement of the problem to be solved.
“Engage a consultant” describes a purchase. “Obtain an independently verified assessment of asset condition to inform the next capital works program” describes an outcome.
That distinction helps establish the deliverables, required expertise and measures of satisfactory performance.
Before preparing procurement documents, clarify:
Involve the people who will use and manage the contract. They can identify requirements that might otherwise emerge only after award.
An unclear scope makes offers harder to compare and creates room for additional fees, variations and disputes about the supplier’s obligations.
Procurement planning should look beyond the organisation’s own project list.
At launch, the Queensland Construction Portal mapped approximately $174 billion in major public and private construction projects through to 2029–30. Covering projects valued at $50 million or more, it also forecasts workforce, skills and materials demand.
For councils and State agencies buying construction and related services, this information can help identify assumptions to test. Will suitable contractors have capacity during the proposed delivery period? Are key personnel and materials likely to be available? Does the timetable allow realistic procurement and mobilisation lead times?
Smaller projects may draw on the same contractors, engineers and supply chains as major developments. Their procurement planning should consider that potential competition.
Pipeline forecasts provide context for project-specific enquiries. They do not establish that a particular supplier is available or that a proposed price and program are achievable.
Use market information and appropriately managed early engagement to test assumptions, then reflect the findings in the scope, budget, timetable and contract.
The initial quotation or first year’s allocation may give an incomplete picture of the commitment.
For planning purposes, consider the anticipated term, extension options, implementation costs, recurring charges and foreseeable additional requirements. Apply the valuation rules under the relevant framework when determining the procurement pathway.
A software purchase may involve configuration, migration, training, support and exit assistance. A maintenance contract may combine routine services with substantial additional work.
Consider related requirements together to understand the overall purchase. Separate orders should not be used to circumvent procurement requirements.
Confirm that funding covers the intended scope and duration, including any approvals needed for commitments extending into later financial years. Where estimates remain uncertain, record the assumptions and how they will be tested.
Market pressures also deserve attention. If delivery depends on constrained resources or long-lead materials, assess the implications for the estimate and program before inviting offers.
Councils and Queensland Government agencies share procurement objectives, but their governing frameworks differ.
For councils governed by the Local Government Act 2009, the Local Government Regulation 2012 provides strategic and default contracting frameworks. Check the applicable pathway, council policy and any proposed exception. Brisbane City Council operates under separate legislation.
State Government buyers should identify the requirements applying to their entity under the Queensland Procurement Policy 2026, agency procedures, delegations and relevant category requirements.
Confirm whether an open tender, quotations, an existing arrangement or another permitted approach is appropriate. If using a panel or standing arrangement, check its scope, eligible purchasers and purchasing conditions.
If relying on an exception, document the grounds, supporting facts and required approval before proceeding.
Work backwards from the required commencement date, allowing for supplier responses, evaluation, approvals, negotiation and mobilisation. A contract nearing expiry should prompt timely planning.
Early market engagement can clarify capacity and requirements. Manage supplier contact, confidentiality and information sharing so participants do not gain an inappropriate advantage.
An approved budget does not necessarily confer authority to approach the market, select a supplier or enter into a contract.
Identify the approvals required at each stage and confirm that the relevant decision-maker’s authority covers the nature and value of the commitment.
Prepare the contract alongside the procurement documents. Address deliverables, payment, insurance, liability, confidentiality, data handling, intellectual property, performance measures and termination rights as appropriate.
Translate identified market risks into practical requirements. For construction, that may include evidence of resource availability, realistic milestones and clear processes for delay and variations. For technology, it may include implementation responsibilities, data access and transition assistance.
These terms affect pricing and supplier participation. Leaving them until after selection can create negotiation difficulties or undermine the basis on which offers were compared.
Identify who will manage the contract and ensure they have the capacity and information to do so.
Five questions before approaching the market
The record should be proportionate to the procurement’s value, complexity and risk. Another officer should be able to understand what was proposed, why the approach was chosen and who authorised it.
Good preparation gives suppliers a clearer opportunity to compete. It also gives the organisation a stronger basis for assessing offers, managing delivery and explaining how public money has been committed.
How Muscat Tanzer can assist
Muscat Tanzer assists councils and government agencies with procurement planning, advice on contracting requirements and approvals, and the preparation and review of tender documents and contracts. We help teams address legal and probity issues early so they can approach the market with clear requirements and a sound basis for decision-making.
In our next article, we examine probity in practice: managing conflicts of interest, supplier contact and commercial pressure.
Director
Muscat Tanzer
16 October 2026 | Issue 2
Welcome to Muscat Tanzer’s weekly update on developments affecting construction, infrastructure, public procurement and government. Each edition focuses on what has changed and what organisations may need to do next.
Queensland: proposed State Planning Policy
Queensland is consulting on a draft State Planning Policy. It proposes separate state interests for employment land, energy and water, a more risk-based approach to natural hazards, and the relocation of development assessment benchmarks to the Planning Regulation 2017. The current 2017 policy remains in force. Submissions close at 11.59 pm on 26 October 2026.
Why it matters: Councils and infrastructure proponents should test the proposals against planning schemes, infrastructure corridors and projects already under assessment. A focused submission could address how the changes would be implemented and how existing work would transition. These are proposals, not current assessment requirements.
NSW: review of the local government regulation
On 9 October, the Office of Local Government opened consultation on remaking the Local Government (General) Regulation 2021. It proposes separate regulations for elections, approvals and orders, and council governance and operations. The current consultation concerns the latter two. The existing regulation remains in force and is scheduled for automatic repeal on 1 September 2027 unless remade. Submissions close at 5 pm on 6 November 2026.
Why it matters: Councils should check the proposed provisions against their approvals, enforcement, governance and procurement processes, and identify any practical gaps. Muscat Tanzer can draw on recurring issues across council matters in considering a response. The replacement regulations have not yet been made.
WA: procurement conflicts in capital works
In a report tabled on 1 October, WA’s Corruption and Crime Commission formed an opinion of serious misconduct by a senior Shire of East Pilbara employee. It found that the employee had inadequately disclosed pre-existing relationships with capital works contractors and favoured companies in exchange for gifts and other benefits. The Commission recommended a complete review of the Shire’s procurement procedures.
Why it matters: This is an integrity finding, not a change in law. Councils and project owners can use it to test conflict declarations, gifts registers, evaluation roles and decision records throughout procurement and contract administration, including variations. It is a useful case study for internal probity reviews.
Commonwealth: first high-value consultancy report due
Under an existing Department of Finance procurement policy note, entities subject to the Commonwealth Procurement Rules must report relevant consultancy contracts worth $2 million or more including GST, including variations or exercised options that reach the threshold. The first report, covering 1 July to 30 September 2026, is due 31 October 2026. It includes AusTender details and pre-market planning, such as consideration of existing resources and incumbency risks.
Why it matters: Commonwealth entities should reconcile contract notices and variations and check that their procurement records explain the planning behind each engagement. This is the first deadline under an existing policy, not a newly announced obligation. Advisers supporting Commonwealth procurements should account for the information agencies will need to report.
Muscat Tanzer advises on construction, infrastructure, procurement and probity, and government matters across Australia. We work with local, state and Commonwealth governments and public-sector suppliers. This update is general information; application depends on the project and its governing documents.
Director
Muscat Tanzer
Director
Muscat Tanzer
Article 10 – Public Sector Development: Getting Governance and Delivery Structures Right
As governments adopt increasingly sophisticated infrastructure delivery structures, clear authority, accountability and risk allocation are becoming critical.
Queensland’s councils, government agencies and other public-sector entities are increasingly delivering infrastructure through government-owned corporations, council-controlled entities, special purpose vehicles, joint ventures and other dedicated delivery arrangements.
These structures can provide commercial flexibility, specialist capability and clearer project focus. However, they also introduce governance and accountability challenges, particularly where government acts simultaneously as landowner, funder, project sponsor, delivery partner or statutory decision-maker.
Creating a separate delivery vehicle does not remove public-sector accountability. It makes clear governance, decision-making authority and separation of responsibilities even more important.
The delivery structure should therefore be considered early, having regard to funding, land ownership, risk allocation, government control and the intended long-term operation of the asset.
Separating Government’s Roles
One of the first governance questions should be straightforward: in what capacity is government acting?
A council or government agency may simultaneously be a shareholder, funder, landowner, procuring authority, delivery partner, future operator or statutory decision-maker.
Each role carries different responsibilities, commercial interests and potentially distinct statutory obligations.
Problems arise when those roles become blurred. Commercial project objectives must not improperly influence statutory approval or regulatory decisions. Equally, officers, directors and advisers must understand whose interests they represent and the authority under which they act.
Clear separation of roles protects both efficient project delivery and the integrity of public-sector decision-making.
Clear Authority and Contractual Alignment
Effective governance requires clarity about who can make which decisions, in what capacity and subject to what limits.
Governance frameworks should identify matters reserved to government, shareholders, boards or project control groups, and those delegated to management or project teams.
These commonly include approval of business cases, budgets, procurement strategies, contract awards, significant variations, contingency expenditure and major commercial settlements.
Delegations and financial thresholds should reflect project complexity and risk, with clear escalation when projects move beyond approved scope, budget or risk tolerances.
Equally important is ensuring that governance arrangements align with project contracts.
Major projects involve multiple participants responsible for funding, land access, approvals, design, construction, utilities and future operations. Responsibility matrices and interface protocols can clarify who is accountable for each obligation and decision.
Governance documents and project contracts should not create competing decision-making structures. Internal approval processes must be consistent with contractual obligations and applicable delegations, particularly where decisions are time-critical.
Conflicts, Probity and Statutory Independence
Public-sector projects present particular challenges where councillors, officers, directors or advisers hold overlapping roles across government and delivery entities.
Governance arrangements should address conflicts of interest, confidentiality, information sharing and the capacity in which individuals participate in decisions.
Particular care is required where government exercises statutory approval, regulatory or enforcement functions affecting projects in which it also has a commercial interest.
Procurement processes likewise require appropriate probity controls, particularly where delivery entities, development partners or related parties have existing government relationships.
Probity should be embedded from early market engagement through procurement, negotiation and significant project decisions—not treated merely as a tender evaluation exercise.
These safeguards protect the integrity, transparency and defensibility of public-sector decisions.
Reporting, Escalation and Independent Assurance
Effective oversight does not require government or project boards to manage day-to-day contract administration. It requires timely, reliable information about matters that could materially affect delivery.
Reporting should be exceptions-based, identifying departures from approved budgets, programs, risk tolerances and performance expectations.
Particular attention should be given to forecast costs, contingency drawdown, critical path delays, significant variations, claims and decisions requiring escalation.
For higher-value or higher-risk projects, independent assurance at key gateways—including procurement, contract award, major scope changes and additional funding commitments—can help test whether commercial assumptions, risk allocation and delivery arrangements remain appropriate.
The objective is to identify emerging problems while meaningful options remain available.
Delivery Deadlines and Long-Term Public Value
For major infrastructure, particularly projects accelerated by Brisbane 2032, delivery deadlines should not become the sole measure of success.
Games-time requirements must be balanced against post-2032 use, sustainability, community benefit and long-term asset performance.
Ownership, maintenance, operating costs, revenue assumptions and future asset utilisation should be considered during project planning and reflected in procurement and contractual arrangements.
A project delivered on time and within budget may still represent a poor outcome if it creates avoidable long-term financial or operational burdens.
Good governance looks beyond practical completion. It asks whether the infrastructure delivered today will continue creating public value tomorrow.
Practical Governance Safeguards
A sound governance framework should include:
These measures should be proportionate to the project’s value, complexity and risk profile.
Bringing the Series Together
Queensland’s infrastructure challenge to 2032 is not simply about how much infrastructure can be funded or how quickly it can be built.
It is a delivery challenge.
Across this series, we have explored market capacity, early engagement, procurement strategy, risk allocation, contracting, ESG, waste and energy infrastructure, probity and governance.
A consistent theme has emerged:
Successful infrastructure delivery depends on decisions made long before construction begins.
How projects are structured, how markets are engaged, how risks are allocated, how contracts are administered and how decisions are governed will determine whether Queensland’s infrastructure investment delivers lasting public value.
Brisbane 2032 provides an immediate deadline, but the infrastructure being planned and delivered now will serve Queensland communities long after the Games.
The opportunity is not simply to deliver more infrastructure by 2032. It is to improve how Queensland plans, procures, contracts and governs infrastructure for the decade beyond it.
How Muscat Tanzer Can Help
Muscat Tanzer advises councils, Queensland Government agencies and other public-sector entities on infrastructure procurement, probity, contracting, governance and project delivery.
We assist clients to establish practical delivery structures, procurement strategies and contractual frameworks that balance commercial objectives, effective risk allocation and public-sector accountability.
Early legal, procurement and probity advice can help identify governance and delivery risks before they become project problems.
Please contact us to discuss any of the issues raised in this article or throughout the Infrastructure Under Pressure series.
Director
Muscat Tanzer
Senior Associate
Muscat Tanzer
12 October 2026 | Issue 1
Welcome to Muscat Tanzer’s weekly update on developments affecting construction, infrastructure, public procurement and government. Each edition focuses on what has changed and what organisations may need to do next.
Queensland: probity under the spotlight
In its 2025–26 annual report, tabled on 25 September, the Crime and Corruption Commission identifies probity in major infrastructure and development procurement as a priority as Queensland prepares for Brisbane 2032. Regulation, licensing and the conduct of elected officials are also areas of focus.
Why it matters: This is a statement of regulatory priorities, not a new legal requirement. It reinforces the value of addressing conflicts, market engagement, evaluation processes and decision records at the start of a project. A probity review undertaken after a concern emerges may have fewer options to resolve it.
NSW: proposed pay protections for council labour hire
The NSW Government has announced proposed legislation concerning workers supplied to councils by labour hire businesses. Under the proposal, a council entering or amending such a contract would need to be satisfied that workers receive at least the remuneration they would receive if employed directly by the council, including applicable overtime and penalty rates. A Bill is expected to be introduced in October; the requirements are not yet law.
Why it matters: Councils preparing labour hire procurements or extensions should watch the Bill’s scope and commencement provisions. If enacted as announced, tender pricing, supplier declarations and ongoing verification may all need attention.
Victoria: labour hire rules now reach further through supply chains
Changes effective 1 October clarify that an arrangement principally involving the supply of labour may require a licence even where workers pass through an intermediary business. The Victorian Labour Hire Authority advises providers and hosts to examine the substance of their arrangements across the supply chain.
A further extension covering certain construction activities on Victorian Government projects over $50 million is anticipated later in October, subject to final regulations.
Why it matters: Principals and contractors should identify who supplies and pays workers, check applicable licences, and review subcontracting and verification arrangements. They should assess the proposed construction extension once its final terms are published.
Commonwealth: proposed workforce standards for suppliers
Consultation is open on a draft Secure Australian Jobs Framework and proposed changes to the Commonwealth Supplier Code of Conduct. The proposals address secure work, wages and conditions, workplace safety, equality, and local jobs and skills. Submissions close 21 October.
Why it matters: The final framework could affect how Commonwealth suppliers demonstrate workforce practices in tenders and during contracts. Purchasers and suppliers, particularly smaller businesses, have an opportunity to comment on how the requirements should be evidenced and applied proportionately. These remain proposals, not current tender obligations.
Commonwealth: shorter supplier payment terms ahead
The Department of Finance has announced updated payment terms. From 1 January 2027, non-corporate Commonwealth entities must pay supplier invoices issued under contracts subject to the Commonwealth Procurement Rules within a maximum of 10 business days, regardless of invoice form. Current terms continue until then.
Why it matters: Entities have time to update contracts and invoice approval processes. Suppliers should check how invoices must be submitted and when payment becomes due under their particular arrangements.
Muscat Tanzer advises on construction, infrastructure, procurement and probity, and government matters across Australia. We work with local, state and Commonwealth governments and support public-sector clients and suppliers across all levels of government. This update is general information; the application of a development depends on the project and its governing documents.
Director
Muscat Tanzer
Director
Muscat Tanzer
Article 10 Probity Under Pressure: Maintaining Integrity in a Compressed Market
Queensland’s infrastructure pipeline is accelerating. Timeframes are tightening, funding is committed and delivery expectations are rising. The pressure to move quickly is real across councils, council-owned corporations and infrastructure agencies.
In this environment, probity is often seen as something to manage rather than something to design. That approach creates risk.
Probity is not a compliance overlay. It is a core part of procurement design that underpins fairness, transparency and defensibility. As delivery pressure increases, the consequences of getting probity wrong become more significant.
Where probity breaks down
Probity failures rarely arise from deliberate misconduct. They are typically the result of poor structure, unclear roles or inconsistent process discipline.
Common issues include:
Probity as a delivery enabler
Probity does not need to slow procurement. Poorly designed frameworks do.
Well-structured probity enables faster and more confident decision-making by providing clarity on process, roles and governance from the outset.
In practice, this requires:
The cost of getting it wrong
Probity failures have real practical consequences.
They can result in procurement challenges, delays, reputational damage and loss of market confidence. Where market confidence dives, so does engagement in council procurements, which depletes competition and erodes value for money. Councils then have to pay more for the same outcomes, delivering less for their budget. In some cases, processes need to be re-run, creating additional cost and programme disruption.
In a constrained market, these outcomes are amplified.
There is also an internal impact. Where governance frameworks are unclear or inconsistently applied, decision-makers become more risk-averse, which can further slow delivery.
How Muscat Tanzer can help
At Muscat Tanzer, we work at the intersection of procurement, probity and project delivery.
We support councils, council-owned corporations and infrastructure agencies to:
In a compressed delivery environment, probity is not a constraint. It is a mechanism that protects delivery outcomes.
Director
Muscat Tanzer
Senior Associate
Muscat Tanzer
Why procurement strategy is becoming as important as technology in delivering Queensland’s next generation of waste infrastructure.
Introduction
Queensland’s waste sector is undergoing its most significant transformation in decades.
The introduction of Food Organics and Garden Organics (FOGO) services, increasing landfill diversion targets, investment in Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFs), energy-from-waste technologies and broader circular economy initiatives are fundamentally changing how councils plan, procure and deliver waste infrastructure.
Unlike many traditional infrastructure projects, however, waste infrastructure is rarely static.
Technology continues to evolve. Regulatory settings continue to change. Community expectations continue to rise. Commodity markets fluctuate. Processing methods improve.
In this environment, councils are no longer procuring infrastructure simply to meet today’s requirements. They are procuring infrastructure that must remain commercially viable and operationally effective for decades.
A Moving Target
Traditional infrastructure projects generally have relatively stable design parameters. Waste infrastructure rarely enjoys that certainty.
Councils must make long-term investment decisions despite uncertainty surrounding:
The consequence is that procurement decisions made today must accommodate circumstances that may be significantly different ten or twenty years from now. As a result, Flexibility is becoming just as valuable as certainty.
Procurement is no Longer About Buying an Asset
Historically, many waste projects focused on constructing a facility. Councils are increasingly procuring long-term service outcomes rather than simply physical infrastructure.
Whether delivering:
the commercial success of the project often depends more on the contractual framework than the facility itself. Procurement is increasingly about establishing long-term commercial relationships capable of adapting to changing circumstances.
Allocating the Right Risks
Waste infrastructure presents a unique allocation of commercial risks. These include:
Feedstock Risk
Will projected waste volumes actually materialise? Will contamination levels exceed expectations? Who bears the financial consequences?
Technology Risk
Processing technologies continue to develop rapidly. How should contracts respond if more efficient technology becomes available during the contract term?
Regulatory Risk
Environmental regulation continues to evolve. Future compliance requirements may fundamentally change facility operations. Who is responsible for those costs?
Market Risk
Recovered materials and compost products depend upon external markets. Commodity prices fluctuate. Demand changes. Quality specifications evolve. Contracts should clearly identify who bears market exposure.
Performance Risk
Long-term operational performance depends on more than construction quality. Availability, throughput, contamination rates and product quality all influence project success. These performance measures should be carefully defined and objectively measurable.
Long-Term Contracts Require Long-Term Thinking
Many waste contracts extend well beyond traditional construction timeframes. Some operate for ten, fifteen or even twenty years. During that period:
Rigid contractual arrangements rarely perform well over these timeframes. Instead, successful contracts build in structured mechanisms for:
The objective is not simply certainty, but must be combined with adaptability.
Collaboration is Becoming Increasingly Important
Waste infrastructure is also becoming more regional. Many councils are collaborating to achieve economies of scale that individual local governments cannot achieve independently. And regional procurement offers significant benefits, including:
However, collaborative procurement also introduces additional governance challenges.
Successful regional projects require:
Without these foundations, collaboration can become more complex than the procurement itself.
Procurement Must Encourage Innovation
Traditional specifications often describe exactly how infrastructure should be designed, but that approach may unintentionally prevent innovation. Given the pace of change in waste technology, councils should increasingly focus on defining:
rather than prescribing technical solutions wherever appropriate.
Outcome-based procurement enables suppliers to propose innovative approaches that may deliver better long-term value. However, innovation should not come at the expense of accountability, but neither should procurement unnecessarily restrict it.
Contract Management Determines Success
Awarding the contract is only the beginning. Long-term waste contracts require disciplined contract management supported by:
The quality of contract management frequently determines whether a project continues to deliver value throughout its operational life.
What This Means for Councils
As Queensland’s waste infrastructure evolves, procurement must evolve with it. Councils should increasingly focus on:
The objective is no longer simply delivering infrastructure. It is creating long-term service arrangements capable of adapting to an evolving waste sector.
Conclusion
Waste infrastructure is unlike almost any other class of public infrastructure. Technology changes. Markets change. Regulation changes. Community expectations change. Contracts need to recognise that reality.
The councils that achieve the greatest long-term value will not necessarily be those that procure the newest facilities. They will be those that establish procurement and contract frameworks capable of evolving alongside industry.
As Queensland’s transition towards a circular economy accelerates, procurement strategy will increasingly become one of the defining factors in successful waste infrastructure delivery.
About Muscat Tanzer
Muscat Tanzer advises councils, regional alliances and government agencies on the procurement, contracting and governance of complex waste and resource recovery infrastructure, including FOGO services, Materials Recovery Facilities, transfer stations and long-term integrated waste management projects.
We assist clients to develop procurement strategies and commercial frameworks that balance innovation, accountability and long-term value while supporting successful project delivery.
Director
Muscat Tanzer
Senior Associate
Muscat Tanzer
The Fair Work Commission has just made a significant move in response to fuel volatility — and its implications go well beyond the transport sector.
Under the Road Transport Contractual Chain Order – Fuel Cost Recovery – 2026, parties across the road transport supply chain are now required to adjust rates to ensure recovery of increased fuel costs.
Notably:
Why This Matters for Construction
While the Order applies directly to the road transport industry, its commercial impact will be felt immediately across construction projects.
Transport providers now have a regulated right — and obligation — to recover fuel increases.
That means:
Most construction contracts do not contain equivalent mandatory cost recovery mechanisms.
So we now have a disconnect:
That gap will land squarely in project margins — or become the subject of claims.
Builders and suppliers will increasingly:
Even where strict legal entitlement is weak, the practical pressure to deal with these costs will increase.
This Order reinforces a broader point:
The market is moving back to dynamic cost environments — but many contracts remain static.
Where downstream supply chains are legally entitled to adjust pricing, but head contracts are not:
The Bigger Shift
This is more than a transport issue.
It is an example of regulatory intervention forcing cost risk to move through a supply chain — in real time.
Construction principals should be asking:
Final Thought
Fuel cost volatility is no longer just a commercial issue — it is now, at least in part, a regulated one.
And once cost recovery becomes embedded at one level of the supply chain, it rarely stops there.
The question is not whether these costs will reach construction projects — but how well your contracts are set up to deal with them when they do.
Director
Muscat Tanzer
