Industrial Relations Society of Queensland – Patron’s Lunch

I’d like to begin by acknowledging the Traditional Custodians of the lands where we are meeting, the Yagera and Turrbal peoples.  

I pay my respects to their Elders, past and present.  

And extend that respect to any Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander peoples here today.  

Can I also acknowledge your Patron, Ros McLennan.  

Your President, Ben French.  

And the Commissioners in the audience today, from State and Federal jurisdictions.  

It’s a pleasure to join you today, to be among a group of passionate people who are committed to making our workplace relations system, work.  

Everyone in this room plays an important part in our workplace relations ecosystem.  

Whether that’s through interpreting the law, enforcing it, applying it in the workplace, or advocating for legal change.  

And I’d like to recognise the work of the Society in providing a forum for discussion about a system that can have such a big impact people’s everyday lives.  

Today I would like to talk to you about some of our Government’s reforms to the federal workplace relations system to promote cooperative and productive workplaces, and our ongoing commitment to ensuring that system remains fair and fit for purpose.   

Because reform is never a set-and-forget job.   

It requires ongoing stewardship and responsiveness, especially as the nature of work evolves.  

My first interaction with the workplace relations system came when I was quite young.  

I started working at 14 years old, at a major retailer in Adelaide.  

At that age, I didn’t really understand how the law shaped my experience at work.  

Until I was 19, when I was asked to sign a newly introduced workplace instrument created by the Howard Government – an individual workplace agreement. 

This agreement explicitly eroded my conditions at work, compared to the existing enterprise agreement.  

I chose not to sign it – and pretty soon after, I didn’t have my casual job anymore.  

But with the help of my union, I was able to seek a remedy through the then-Industrial Relations Commission, and sit down as an equal with my employer, to discuss the matter in conciliation.  

Through this process, I got my job back.  

That was a formative experience for a 19-year-old worker.  

It shaped my understanding of the profound impact that workplace laws can have on people’s lives, including my own.  

And it illustrated how important it is to have an easily accessible, independent jurisdiction to support resolution of workplace issues.  

So it is not lost on me the responsibility I have now as Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, with stewardship of our workplace relations system.  

A key part of that responsibility is ensuring our workplace relations system encourages employers and employees to work together, which only happens when both parties have agency and are treated with respect.  

And this is good for workers and for employers, because research shows that trust and cooperation between workers and employers can substantially boost an organisation’s performance.  

Of course, our workplace laws play a critical role in creating the conditions for that cooperation.  

And this has been a key consideration of our Government’s approach to workplace relations reform: to encourage workers, whether individually or collectively, and their employers to work together in good faith – in individual workplaces, across industries and in the broader economy.  

This approach has guided our reforms, including where there are new rights for workers, like the right to disconnect, a clearer right for casual workers to request permanency, or a stronger right to request flexible work arrangements.  

By design, these reforms have encouraged discussion between workers and their employers, whether it’s about contact outside of work hours, or how a flexible work arrangement can meet the operational needs of the business and the personal needs of the employee.   

And the evidence suggests that this approach is working.  

For example, we know the Right to Disconnect has prompted many conversations in the workplace about reasonable contact outside of work hours.  

And we have seen very few disputes at the Commission, suggesting workers and employers are reaching agreement between themselves, without the need for dispute resolution.  

Of course, while there are many cases where the best outcomes come from employers and employees working out issues at the workplace level, in some cases it is better for policy settings to be more explicit, rather than less.  

Baby Priya’s Law, which passed the Parliament last year, is a really good example.  

That law removed grey areas in relation to the cancellation of employer-funded paid parental leave, in the event of stillbirth or death of a child.  

By removing ambiguity, all parties – workers and their employers – have clear direction on what should happen in such a terrible situation.  

And when everyone is on the same page, meaningful cooperation is much more likely to follow.  

One of the best ways to encourage that meaningful cooperation at the workplace level is through enterprise bargaining.  

Because the process of bargaining itself encourages constructive dialogue that can help build understanding between the parties.  

Our Government does want to see more enterprise bargaining, because of the benefits it delivers to workers and to businesses.  

Through our reforms, we have made it easier to strike an enterprise agreement by removing barriers and opening new avenues to bargaining.  

We have done this by simplifying the Better Off Overall Test, by applying it as a global assessment, rather than a line by line comparison. 

And we simplified the approval process for enterprise agreements.  

Our Government’s reforms also provided more options for businesses and workers to make multi-employer agreements, particularly in low-paid industries through supported bargaining, with enhanced support available from the Fair Work Commission.  

More recently, we passed legislation to allow the re-initiation of supported bargaining without the need for a new authorisation, if the previous authorisation is less than 2 years old. 

And we strengthened the ability of the Fair Work Commission to resolve intractable bargaining disputes.  

Of course, in addition to our reforms to deliver individual rights and to reinvigorate enterprise bargaining, we have also legislated some important principles that our Government believes are critical to fairness in our workplace laws.  

While we’ve created the legislation to embed these principles in workplaces, when, where and how these principles should be applied is a matter for the Fair Work Commission to determine, based on careful, expert consideration of the circumstances of each case.  

An example of this is our Same Job Same Pay legislation.  

When we came to office, there were clear examples of companies undercutting the bargained wages and conditions of direct employees by using labour hire workers to do exactly the same work.  

So our Government legislated that labour hire employees, doing the same job as direct employees, should be paid the same.  

But under the law, parties must first make an application to the Fair Work Commission for orders to be made.  

And it is then up to the independent Commission to look at the facts of the matter, and determine whether or not that situation is a genuine use of labour hire.  

This approach ensures that decisions take into account the individual circumstances of each application, and are based on the Commission’s deep expertise in workplace law.  

Our Government has taken the same approach to the emerging issues with workers in the gig economy.  

We legislated a model for minimum standards for these workers because it was clear their model of employment was not a traditional employee relationship, but nor were they true contractors.  

As a result, they were falling through our country’s workplace relations safety net.  

However, taking the approach I have outlined above, when and how these minimum standards apply is a matter for the Commission to determine, in response to applications from parties.  

This approach again gives the Commission the flexibility to respond to the new ways of work we see emerging in our economy, by ensuring there are minimum protections in place but without trying to force workers into a standard employment relationship.  

This is a world-first.  

And we hope to see the successful outcome from this process soon, when minimum standards for food delivery drivers and riders come into effect.  

A final example of where our Government has embedded new principles into our workplace relations framework is by legislating to make gender equality an objective of the Fair Work Act.  

The Commission is now required to consider the need for gender equity in performing all its functions.  

And as a result of the Government’s legislative change, the Commission has initiated its own work to address gender undervaluation in the award system.  

This is an important step towards closing the gender pay gap that recognises the major contribution that workers in female-dominated sectors make to our society.  

So while government has an important role in legislating explicit rights and important principles that govern the workplace, an independent tribunal such as the Fair Work Commission is critical in how these are operationalised in the workplace.  

And to ensure the Fair Work Commission can continue to fulfil these vital functions, our Government has provided significant additional funding to the Commission since we were elected.  

In addition, we have legislated to address some of the emerging trends the Commission is facing, particularly the rise in AI-generated applications.  

We have sought to give the Commission more powers to deal with these applications, that are often of low quality, based on imaginary legal arguments and with very little prospect of success.  

Our legislation provides the Commission with more discretion to determine matters on the papers without the need for a formal hearing, where it is appropriate to do so.  

We have removed the requirement for costly, time-consuming hearings to determine whether or not an applicant in a general protections matter has actually been dismissed.  

We have also provided the Commission with additional powers to dismiss vexatious or frivolous applicants, including preventing them from making further applications.  

These reforms will save the time and resources of the Commission, as well as the parties, to deliver fair and timely resolutions.  

Of course, a key part of access to justice is having an effective way to apply and enforce the law.  

And because Australia does not have a specialist national employment court, many workplace matters end up in the Federal Court, the Federal Circuit and Family Court, or even a relevant state court.  

The division of functions between different institutions can create complexity and duplication.  

And it creates additional barriers to the quick and efficient resolution of disputes, especially for workers and small businesses who don’t have the time or resources to navigate lengthy legal proceedings.  

They can spend months or years seeking a resolution, or pursuing a claim that ends up being less than the cost of the case.  

In the Federal Court system, we have seen a roughly 30 per cent increase in pending workplace matters.  

That’s a 30 per cent increase in people having to wait for an outcome.  

But where there are state-based specialist employment courts, we are hearing from stakeholders that they are quicker and easier to navigate.  

For example, the South Australian Employment Tribunal has been able to achieve a clearance rate of close to 100 per cent in its workplace matters over the last few years.  

While existing state and territory courts perform an important role, they are not available in every jurisdiction, and their set-up differs from state to state.  

Our Government wants to see a clear pathway in the federal jurisdiction for faster and more effective outcomes for workers and employers across the whole country.  

That is why our Government recently announced that we will establish a Fair Work Court.  

This new court will provide a specialist forum for resolving workplace disputes, that is closely integrated with the Fair Work Commission.  

The Commission will retain its central role in conciliation and arbitration.  

But a Fair Work Court will be a national judicial forum for workplace matters, giving all parties greater certainty about where to go to resolve their disputes, regardless of where they are located.  

Establishing this Court provides an opportunity to streamline processes and create clearer pathways between institutions.  

The judges on the Fair Work Court will be experts, with deep specialist knowledge of the Fair Work framework and how it applies to Australian workplaces.  

As a specialist institution, the Court will be better placed to establish tailored procedures that encourage early resolution and facilitate constructive engagement.  

This expertise will also support greater national consistency in case management, procedures and decision-making.  

And it will help deliver a more efficient system that can resolve disputes as quickly and fairly as possible, reducing the burden on all parties.  

Having this expertise is especially important in workplace relations, because as you all know, employment contracts are very different to ordinary commercial contracts.  

They are governed by an entirely different statutory framework, which carries rights and obligations that can override any contractual terms.  

Now I would like to be clear that the creation of this Court is not about adding additional obligations, for workers or for business.  

It is simply about improving the way existing laws are administered and enforced.  

Of course, as many of you will know, the concept of a dedicated workplace relations court is not new.  

Paul Keating established the Industrial Relations Court of Australia in 1993.  

That court was well-regarded for being user-friendly because it was able to tailor its processes to its specific remit, including reducing the documentation required in matters and introducing the minimal adjournment policy.  

Like with any major proposal, there will be extensive consultation on the design of this Fair Work Court.  

There is a lot of detail that will need to be worked through, including the Court’s exact design, scope and interaction with the Fair Work Commission.  

And I know that many of you in this room will have thoughts on this, so I would really encourage you to contribute to that consultation process once it commences.  

Because I know that we share the goal of a workplace relations system that delivers fair and effective outcomes for the people it serves.  

As I close, I want to say thank you again to all of you for your contribution to Australia’s workplace relations system.  

As I learned when I was a young worker, the laws and institutions that govern workplace relations are not abstract.  

They can have a very real impact on people, their livelihoods and their lives.  

That is why our Government is focused on ensuring Australia has a workplace relations system that is fair, accessible and fit for purpose.  

Thank you.