But the employment minister says unions will not - and have never - have veto power over government procurement.

The ACT's parliament is set to debate draft legislation that will prevent companies from getting government work unless they have a local jobs code certificate on Thursday.

To obtain a certificate, companies will have to be audited at least every two-and-a-half years and comply with a Secure Local Jobs Code.

The code is a formalisation of a longstanding agreement between the Barr government's and Unions ACT, in which the territory agreed not to award tenders to companies that did not comply with workplace safety laws, had underpaid workers or did not have cooperative industrial relations practices.

But members of an ACT Legislative Assembly committee tasked with scrutinising the bill have presented dissenting recommendations on how the bill should be changed.

Mr Hanson said the bill should be scrapped, or failing that changed dramatically.

In his own set of recommendations - which were not endorsed by the rest of the committee - he called for changes to the advisory body that will oversee the scheme.

Under the bill, a secure local jobs code advisory council will be set up to provide advice to Employment Minister Rachel Stephen-Smith on procurement matters.

Three of the six members must be union leaders, while the other three positions will be appointed at the minister's discretion.

Mr Hanson said at least one spot should be hypothecated for employer groups.

“There’s no commensurate balance. All I ask for is one member, one voice, just one single voice to represent the interests of business and that's been knocked back so we’re going to have a stack of everybody on this committee representing the interests of the unions and not a single person representing the interest of business. I think you can see how this would give unions a power of veto," Mr Hanson said.

However, Ms Stephen-Smith's spokesman said the council would have no veto power.

"The council’s role is to advise the minister on the operation of the act and other relevant matters in relation to local jobs and procurement. It will have no role in specific tender processes and certainly no right of veto," he said.

"Procurement in line with the Secure Local Jobs Code will remain the responsibility of ACT government officials.

"In this context, we also note that unions do not currently have, and have never had, a right of veto over government procurement under the MOU."

The spokesman said a significant role of the council was to review the procurement reforms in its second year of operation, looking at compliance with the code as well as complaints and disputes.

Mr Hanson also recommended anyone charged or convicted of a criminal offence punishable by at least two years imprisonment or convicted of an offence under workplace law be excluded from sitting on the council.

Mr Hanson said it was "staggering" the government had rejected his recommendation.

"It’s extraordinary that the government's going to have people advising it that are repeated lawbreakers and potentially criminals," Mr Hanson said.

Mr Hanson also called for the introduction date to be pushed back to mid-2019, and for the appointment of the Secure Local Jobs Code registrar to be depoliticised and require the candidate to be endorsed by two-thirds of the Assembly.

The threshold at which companies would require a labor relations, training and workplace equity plan should be increased from $25,000 to $1 million, Mr Hanson said, and there should be a limit to the frequency with which union officials can call meetings or examine documents, to prevent the power being abused in times of industrial disputes.

Labor members of the committee Michael Pettersson and Suzanne Orr filed their own dissenting recommendations, one of which would have required companies to establish mandatory quotas of Indigenous, female and disabled workers as well as apprentices.

The committee agreed there should be a review of the impact of the new laws on small-to-medium sized businesses, and the government should look to move the auditing of businesses in-house.

The ACT government did not respond to the dissenting recommendations, but agreed or agreed-in-principle to all the recommendations the committee agreed on.