Workplace Relations

Venning argued that the proposal added another layer of bureaucracy and red tape to an already complex system. Venning questioned how the new court would interact with the Fair Work Commission and whether it would actually speed up outcomes. Venning cited concerns from industry groups that the move would increase costs and uncertainty for businesses. Venning urged the government to simplify workplace laws rather than creating new institutions.

Fernando highlighted her experience seeing workers unable to pursue claims due to high costs. Fernando noted that filings in federal courts had risen significantly, indicating pressure on the system. Fernando argued the new court would provide a streamlined pathway for disputes unresolved by the Fair Work Commission. Fernando stated the reform restores a specialist court abolished in 1997 to ensure rights can be enforced effectively.

Hawke criticised the proposal as a step backwards, noting the previous industrial relations court was abolished three decades ago. Hawke argued that the Federal Court is capable of handling these matters if properly resourced. Hawke claimed the government's motive was to empower the union movement rather than improve efficiency. Hawke warned that adding another layer would not solve listing delays or improve the system's functionality.

Garland cited examples of workers facing excessive delays and costs in the current court system. Garland argued the Fair Work Court would offer a simpler and faster resolution pathway for workplace disputes. Garland emphasised that specialist judges would make the legal system more accessible for vulnerable workers and small businesses. Garland noted that public consultation would determine key features such as jurisdiction and judge appointments.

Rebello argued that the core problem was the complexity of industrial regulations, not the number of courts. Rebello expressed concern that specialist judges might be biased towards union perspectives, leading to unfair outcomes for employers. Rebello stated that small businesses are struggling with compliance costs and that the government should simplify laws instead. Rebello suggested better resourcing existing courts would be a more effective solution to delays.