by leave—On behalf of the member for Holt, I move:

That this House:

(1) recognises the Prime Minister's announcement that the Government will establish a new Fair Work Court;

(2) notes that the aims of the Fair Work Court are to:

(a) provide simpler, fairer and faster access to justice for working Australians; and

(b) ensure that workers are not placed in a position where the cost of pursuing a claim exceeds the value of the claim; and

(3) further notes that the:

(a) Fair Work Court would be staffed by specialist judges with expertise in workplace relations; and

(b) Government will consult with workers, employers and legal experts on the operation of the Fair Work Court, including how it can improve access to justice and better support workers and employers in navigating workplace disputes.

It is said that justice delayed is justice denied, and we're certainly seeing that in the employment jurisdiction of our courts. While a worker has 21 days to file an unfair dismissal claim, the process can take years in and of itself. The announcement of a new Fair Work Court provides a unique opportunity to get the system itself right to ensure that we have a court that is fit for purpose in the way that these matters are dealt with in the current environment.

We know that courts are receiving a whole lot of AI driven gobbledegook from self-represented litigants, which is clogging up the system a lot. However, there are many well-merited claims that lie underneath. But we know that in a world where self-representation is becoming the norm, the role of the judge does change. It is more important than ever that the judge is the legal expert in the room with the specialist expertise to assist parties to resolve the real issues in dispute without the benefit of having counsel for both sides raising the important legal points to be made as part of that process. It also means that the traditional adversarial trial of that triangle of judge-applicant-respondent doesn't really work anymore.

The role of facilitator and arbitrator really does change, and to ensure that the court's processes reflect that is incredibly important. It may involve, for example, a more structured approach to making applications to ensure that respondents, or employers, are actually able to receive a document that sets out the issues clearly and provides them with something that they're able to respond to because, right now, the system simply isn't working for anyone. Workers are facing lengthy delays, which means that any chance of a reappointment as an outcome of that process is undermined with every single month that it is delayed, denying both parties what is commonly a desirable outcome. It's also not working for employers because they're receiving submissions that are all but impossible to respond to and cost an absolute fortune to hire solicitors to develop responses to. You've got hundreds of pages of occasionally nonsensical submissions which adds to the costs and challenges associated with defending these claims as well.

We've got to make sure that we get the system right. That means having the right expertise with the right procedures to ensure that justice is delivered consistently and fairly every time. We also know that there is a tremendous opportunity to have better integration with the Fair Work Commission so that the courts receive more than just a certificate saying that conciliation hasn't worked. Perhaps they may receive a full case file that sets out the relevant issues in dispute and the evidence collected so far so that the entire process can be more streamlined and efficient for all parties involved.

If we have complex court procedures and we have a system that is designed around each party having skilled legal practitioners involved, that system isn't going to work in a jurisdiction where you have an individual on one side representing themselves and a small business owner with limited means on the other. We cannot be married to the process if we're not happy with the outcomes. Right now, I don't think any side of politics can be proud of the way industrial relations disputes are being handled in our court system. It's just not a system designed for the current realities of litigation. We need to make sure that we're updating that process, that the judges in the court have the requisite expertise and that we learn from history around specialist courts, as well, in ensuring that there is a program for the consistent and professional development of judges, making sure they're maintaining knowledge of current trends and common law developments.

We can do that, but it will mean good design. The process that is being undertaken right now by the government is about getting this right to make sure that we not only have a separate court with judges with legal expertise in the area of industrial relations but that we design the system to work for all parties involved. Right now, the last thing a business needs is a lengthy court process getting in the way of them doing what they need to do to make a profit, and the last thing workers need is a lengthy process when all they're really after is getting their job back in circumstances where they may have been unfairly dismissed or otherwise.

It is going to be an important discussion as we go to develop this court. We're setting out its jurisdiction, making sure that its procedures are fit for purpose, making sure that we have the right mix of judges with subject matter expertise as well as the professional capability to bring insights from other areas of law as well, and making sure that we get this right. I'm hoping that this debate can be about how we can do justice better, how we can make the court system work better for both employers and employees and how we can make sure that we focus this discussion on getting it right. Workers deserve better and employers deserve better. It's really important that we seize this opportunity to try new things, to do litigation better and to learn from developments in the way that litigation is done in other areas, such as less adversarial trials and other novel procedures, to ensure that we are serving the Australian people as best we can. This area of law is too important to just leave on the shelf. This is important work, and I commend the member for Holt for raising this motion.

Is the motion seconded?

I second the motion and I reserve my right to speak.

More words and more bureaucracies from this Labor government—we need to fix what we've got, not add more complexity to the already complex system. The coalition supports a workplace relations system that is simple, fair and easy to comply with. Most importantly, the coalition supports a system that delivers timely justice for workers and employers. Workers deserve to be paid every dollar they are owed. Employers have a responsibility to provide fair wages and conditions, and every organisation, regardless of who they are, must comply with the law.

But Labor's response to an already complex industrial relations system is just to create another layer of legal process and more red tape. The Albanese government's announcement of a proposed new Fair Work Court raises far more questions than it answers. If even the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations cannot comply with Australian workplace laws, then how does Labor believe that adding more layers, more litigation, more red tape and another court will magically fix the system? This does not make any sense.

There are some very basic questions this Albanese Labor government needs to answer. Firstly, will this new court be able to overturn decisions of the Fair Work Commission, or will it be subject to the commission? Secondly, when should a worker or an employer seek resolution through this proposed court, and when should they go to the Fair Work Commission? Thirdly, can a business be taken to both the commission and the court for the same workplace matter, or will it be one process or the other? Fourthly, will certain groups receive priority over others when bringing claims? These are very simple questions, and they go directly to whether this proposal will actually make Australian workplace relations simpler, faster and fairer. Rather than creating another institution, the government should be focused on making workplace laws simpler, clearer and easier to comply with.

We share the concerns of workers, employers and small businesses about lengthy delays in resolving workplace disputes. Justice delayed is justice denied, but simply creating another court does not guarantee faster outcomes. I would argue the opposite. How does adding another layer of bureaucracy make things faster? We know it doesn't. That's common sense. Nor does it guarantee a fairer system.

These concerns are not coming from the coalition alone. These concerns are shared by industry, including ACCI, the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Industry Group. Everyone is warning that another new court risks adding costs, complexity and another layer of red tape to an already overly complex workplace relations system. As one chief executive put it, the proposal is 'a bandaid on a fundamentally broken system'. That is an important point. Employers are already drowning in complexity. Small businesses in Grey are closing at an alarming rate due to the cost-of-living pressures and the cost-of-doing-business pressures. Adding another institution, another layer of bureaucracy and another layer of red tape will not solve any problems. Indeed, ACCI has warned that Labor's workplace changes have already produced greater uncertainty, expanded jurisdiction and increased litigation. Its description of the potential consequences of this as 'a lawyer's picnic' is telling.

The Albanese Labor government needs to explain why. Why create another legal process instead of fixing the underlying problems? Why add another layer when workers and businesses are already struggling to navigate the system? Why does Labor believe more litigation will deliver better workplace relations? The coalition will carefully scrutinise the details of this proposal when they are released. We will stand up for workers across regional South Australia, who deserve to be paid what they are owed, and for employers, who deserve clear, workable laws. But Labor must explain how this proposal will reduce delays, improve compliance and deliver better outcomes than reforming the workplace relations system itself. Australians deserve a workplace relations system that delivers certainty, fairness and timely justice. (Time expired)

The Albanese Labor government has committed to establishing a new specialist Fair Work Court. This reform is very simple. It's making sure workers and employers can resolve workplace disputes quickly, fairly and without unnecessary cost. Before entering parliament, I worked as a union organiser at the SDA. I saw workers who knew they had been underpaid and treated unfairly but could not afford to pursue their claims. I saw cases that did not go ahead because the cost of taking them further was greater than the money the worker was trying to recover. That experience has stayed with me, because a worker should not have to choose between pursuing justice and paying their rent, and a small business should not have to spend years navigating a complicated court process to resolve workplace disputes. That is why these reforms matter to the communities I represent across Cranbourne, Clyde, Hampton Park and Narre Warren South. These are communities built by people who work in our warehouses, factories, construction sites, hospitals, schools, shops and restaurants—people who have made every dollar count. When someone is owed a wage, that money matters.

The current system can be costly, complex and very slow. Some workers and small businesses are spending more than two years fighting for resolutions that should be simple. The proposed Fair Work Court would provide a more streamlined pathway for workplace disputes that cannot be resolved through the current Fair Work Commission. It would draw on specialist judges with expertise in workplace relations working seamlessly with the Fair Work Commission and the Federal Court system. For workers, that means a more accessible pathway to justice. For employers, particularly small business, it means a simpler process for resolving disputes without unnecessary litigation.

The need for that reform is clear. In the Federal Circuit and Family Court, fair work filings rose by 68 per cent from 2022 to 2025. In the Federal Court, filings rose by 38 per cent in the same period. At the same time, the Fair Work Commission is experiencing historically high lodgements, especially dismissal related claims. These figures show the system is under pressure.

Our government has already started responding to this pressure through the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Building Cooperative Workplaces No. 1) Act 2026. We have made changes to improve the Fair Work Commission's processes, by allowing certain matters to be heard on the papers and limiting the impact of baseless cases. These reforms were about making the commission more effective.

But we are also recognising that some matters need to go beyond the commission. That is where the proposed Fair Work Court comes in. A specialist fair work court would help create a clearer, more efficient pathway for these matters. The Howard government abolished the last Industrial Relations Court in 1997. Now, almost three decades later, Labor is moving to restore a specialist court for industrial relations matters. This is important, because we have always said that our industrial relations system is only meaningful if people can enforce their rights.

That system only works if it is also understood that the majority of businesses want to do the right thing. Businesses want clear rules, certainty and a system that works. Labor understands that a fair industrial relations system is one that gives both sides a fair opportunity to resolve disputes. This reform is about delivering that system. It is about recognising that our industrial relations system must keep pace with the modern economy. That is Labor's way, and that is what we will continue to deliver for working Australians. I want to thank the Attorney-General, Michelle Rowland, and the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Amanda Rishworth, on their work establishing this new court, and I look forward as consultation continues over this year.

I thank the member for Holt for that contribution and for putting this motion forward. It is well premature for the government to be claiming any success on the industrial relations front by positing that its not-even-draft legislation will somehow prove efficiency in the workplace relations system in Australia today. We've just heard a series of arguments from Labor members that this is purely administrative—that this will just help us get through what is an overloaded and complex work system. We couldn't agree more in the coalition that the fair work system has taken Australia backwards 10, 20 or 30 years, in a legislative sense, to a point where matters are now so delayed and complex and so difficult for Fair Work to arbitrate on. Every single matter that has to come before any agreement or bargaining between an employer and employee has to go through Fair Work. No wonder the system is seizing up. No wonder it is slow. No wonder it can't be done. But to say the solution is to also go backwards 30 years—and here we had the member for Holt saying the Howard government removed it. Yes, that was 30 years ago. We're not keeping pace with the modern industrial relations system or the modern workplace by going back 30 years and restoring a court that was abolished 30 years ago. No-one has missed the specialist Industrial Relations Court—nobody at all. And I can tell you that the employers do not. 'Do not verbal them,' I would say to all Labor members here. They are extremely sceptical of the government's actual motive in bringing back a court that nobody misses and that nobody has missed.

The Federal Court has continued to do its job in this country, as the Labor Party well knows. Of course there are court delays. Yes, Member for Deakin, there are listing delays in every court in Australia. Resource the courts properly. There are easier solutions before you get to this legislative change. Why don't you propose to the Attorney-General a massive increase so the listings can be finalised and the matters can be dealt with and the court can do its function? That would be a much more efficient and easier way—and a cheaper way—to get those matters arbitrated. No, the government's motive in restoring this court of 30 years ago is to enable their paymasters—their actual political masters—the union movement of Australia, to bring forward industrial relations matters and to punish companies through the process. More delays, more threats of court action give the whip hand to the Australian union movement. That is the absolute motivation of this government in doing this; make no mistake.

So, while we have record insolvencies, business conditions the worst they've ever been, the lowest levels of investment, a government tax regime that is punishing free enterprise in Australia, the lowest productivity in the world, the highest wages in the world, a system where employers are now punished and criminalised for employing people in many aspects and one of the most complex industrial relations systems in the world, they're proposing to add another layer. The Labor Party is saying that's for efficiency purposes. I can tell you one thing: absolutely 100 per cent—you don't have to be Nostradamus; you don't have to be in the business of predictions—this will not make the industrial relations system in Australia more efficient. It will not make it work better. It will not deal with that listings issue. It will certainly allow the union movement the platform they have sought for 30 years to take further action in favour of the unions—not in favour of employees, but the unions—giving them the whip hand over the industrial relations system even further. That will lead to one thing: unemployment.

You can go back to the speech of Peter Reith when he abolished this to get the real truth about why this motion is here before us. Peter Reith gave a master speech on the removal of this court and about why it happened. He also quoted Paul Keating, and I'd throw this back at the Labor Party as a final point for them to understand. Even Paul Keating, when he was talking about industrial relations, understood the need to cloak his words, in fact. He would say things such as that Australia needed a model of industrial relations:

… which places primary emphasis on bargaining at the workplace level within a framework of minimum standards provided by arbitral tribunals … compulsorily arbitrated awards and arbitrated wage increases would be there only as a safety net.

Prime Minister Paul Keating went on to argue, for the best situation:

For most employees and most businesses, wages and conditions of work would be determined by agreements worked out by the employer, the employees and their union.

That, too, was only 30 years ago. Fast forward, and now we have a modern system where, to keep pace, as the member for Holt says, what we need is the court from 30 years ago. Absolutely we don't, because the Fair Work system is failing for its own reasons. It is too complex. Even unions are breaching the Fair Work Act in their pay to their own employees. Are they criminals? Should they be criminalised for that behaviour, or is the system too complex? Is it failing? Is it letting us down? We would argue that complexity is what's killing this system.

I think quoting one of the architects of the disastrous Work Choices legislation tells us everything we need to know about how little those opposite care about working people and justice in their workplaces. I'm really pleased to rise and speak on this important business before the House and I really want to thank the member for Holt for bringing it to the attention of the House today. Like the member for Holt and all of those on this side of the House, I understand the importance of the Prime Minister's announcement that the government will establish a new Fair Work court in enabling access to justice.

A Fair Work court is going to provide simpler, fairer and faster justice for working Australians. This is important because we know that a fair workplace relations system relies on workers and employers being able to resolve disputes quickly and fairly. The current court system for workers and employers can be costly, it can be complex to navigate and it can be too slow to respond to the needs of modern workplaces. We know that fair and timely dispute resolution is important for vulnerable workers, many of whom lack the resources to pursue justice through lengthy proceedings. And, currently, we know that some workers and small businesses are spending more than two years fighting for a resolution that really should be simple.

I'm reminded about some of these recent situations that some Australian workers find themselves in when it comes to seeking justice for work related matters. For example, a retail worker in a small cafe was fired in March after a worker's compensation claim, with the first court date not available until 4 August. It will then take more than 12 months just to get a mediation date—and this was already after having matters dealt with in the Fair Work Commission. We've seen an electrician who was sacked unlawfully for raising safety concerns, among other issues, and it took more than 2½ years to get a court order for compensation, which unfortunately caused significant financial hardship.

A fair workplace relations system relies on workers and employers being able to resolve disputes quickly and fairly. And, unfortunately, based on these stories and on what we see in the system, we know the current court system can be too expensive, can be too complicated and, as we can see, can be too slow to respond to the needs of workers and employees. I would hope we can all agree that workers shouldn't be in a situation where their case will cost more than their claim is worth. So, as announced by the Labor government, the Fair Work Court will support faster and more effective resolution of workplace disputes, working seamlessly with the Fair Work Commission, and thus ensuring that this sort of situation doesn't happen. This will also respond to stakeholder concerns that the existing system is not functioning as well as it could be and not meeting the needs of modern workplaces.

Cases that can't be resolved or dealt with by the Fair Work Commission in the current system must go through the Federal Court system. But having a single federal jurisdiction with a pathway for workplace dispute resolution under the Fair Work Act will streamline dispute resolution pathways. It will also draw on the expertise of specialist judges to ensure that the legal system is accessible and user focused for workers and businesses. This is a really important point. It is important that we recognise that expertise of judges working in this particular area of law. This will better support, as an independent jurisdiction, the resolution of workplace issues. This means the system will be more efficient; it will resolve disputes as quickly and fairly as possible, reducing the burden on all parties involved.

The number of judges will depend on a range of matters, such as jurisdiction, and this is all subject to consultation at the moment. There will be public consultation focusing on key features, such as jurisdiction, transitional arrangements and opportunities to enhance support for parties progressing matters through the workplace relations system. And, of course, there will be a merit based approach to appoint judges.

It was the Howard government that abolished the last industrial relations court in 1997. On this side of the House, we do believe there needs to be a fit-for-purpose court to hear workplace disputes, and that is why we're putting the Fair Work Court forward, ensuring that workers have simpler, fairer and faster justice available to them. I thank the member for Holt, once again, for bringing this before the House.

There is no question that the coalition supports an industrial relations system that is simple, that is fair and that is easy to comply with. And it should provide both workers and employers with timely access to justice. Those opposite talk about fairness, but when I look at this motion I have to ask: fairness for whom?

This motion demonstrates that this government still doesn't understand the real problem with Australia's industrial relations system. The problem is not actually the name of the court or how many courts there are; the problem is the complexity of the system itself. And at a time when, as a country, small businesses are going through absolute hell because of what this government is putting them through—we are seeing record insolvencies, as my colleague the member for Mitchell spoke about—we're making it even harder for employers to do what they do best—that is, employing people.

Our industrial relations system in this country is extraordinarily complex. There are layers upon layers of legislation, awards, regulations, agreements, rules and obligations. But the government's answer to that complexity is, apparently, to create another court. That doesn't simplify the system; it just adds another layer to it. If the government is genuinely concerned about delays in workplace disputes, there are other options available to it. It can look to better resource the existing courts. I have a number of fantastic professionals in my electorate who work in the industrial relations space. I spoke to them this morning on the phone, and I said: 'I'm being asked to speak on this motion. What are your views?' They said, 'This is actually out of touch with what the actual need is.' As they said to me, and like I said, if the problem is a lack of judicial resources the government should be better resourcing the courts we already have. Don't create another institution and pretend that that solves the underlying problem.

We have watched this movie before. The concern we're seeing from employers, employer representative groups and industry is that, as the motion says, 'the Fair Work Court would be staffed by specialist judges with expertise in workplace relations'. The concern for all of us on this side of the chamber and the concern for those employers out there is that the new court will instead be loaded with judges from a union employer background and, in effect, will become partisan or ideological. It will just become yet another avenue for Labor to push the views of its union mates—and that means it's about bullying employers into settling. It will not lead to fairer outcomes; it will lead to employers copping more. There's also a concern that moving into a specialist court like the one that is proposed would divorce decisions about this area of law from other areas of law and general principles that may continue to become relevant.

Like I said, the problem isn't the name of the court or the fact that this court is there; it's the complexity of the system itself. The complexity of industrial regulation in this country is the problem, not the court system. We have amongst the most complex systems in the world. Government needs to make our incredibly complex industrial relations system more simple—and it does that by revisiting the legislation that is being put through in this building and seeing whether it is fit for purpose and whether it's prohibitive to doing business in this country. Until it does that, the problems are going to continue.

We see people who are doing the right thing. They're running their businesses and they're wanting to employ Australians. They're in a situation where they're not wanting to have to do so because it is too difficult to employ someone. This is a quote from someone in my electorate I spoke to earlier today: 'If I had a dollar for every time I explained the risks to a small business under our employment and fair-work system, they say, "Why would I employ anyone?"' That is right, because it's impossible to comply with every aspect of your obligations if you're an employer in this country—especially for SMEs, for small and medium enterprises. If large organisations and large corporations can't comply as it is, and if the unions can't comply and are in breach from time to time, of course small businesses, who don't have the resources that these large companies have, are going to have issues. That is something that is symptomatic of a broken system.

I ask this government: fair to who? If you genuinely want a fairer industrial relations system, start by making the law simpler. The problem isn't that Australia doesn't have enough industrial relations courts; the problem is that the system is too complex.

The time allotted for this debate has expired.