Current Volume
2026 Volume 39 Issue 1
Articles
Industrial Legislation in Australia in 2025
Adriana Orifici
Abstract
This article reviews industrial legislation reform in Australia in 2025 and highlights significant changes and key trends. While fewer reforms were passed by the Commonwealth Parliament in 2025 than in the previous three years, key legislative changes were enacted under the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Act 2025 (Cth), Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Act 2025 (Cth) and Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya’s) Act 2025 (Cth). States and territories reformed regimes that regulate labour hire, wage theft, and long service leave portability. The Parliaments of Victoria, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory respectively engaged in significant reforms of their state and territory-specific statutory frameworks about anti-discrimination, industrial relations, and workers’ compensation.
This article reviews industrial legislation reform in Australia in 2025 and highlights significant changes and key trends. While fewer reforms were passed by the Commonwealth Parliament in 2025 than in the previous three years, key legislative changes were enacted under the Workplace Gender Equality Amendment (Setting Gender Equality Targets) Act 2025 (Cth), Fair Work Amendment (Protecting Penalty and Overtime Rates) Act 2025 (Cth) and Fair Work Amendment (Baby Priya’s) Act 2025 (Cth). States and territories reformed regimes that regulate labour hire, wage theft, and long service leave portability. The Parliaments of Victoria, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory respectively engaged in significant reforms of their state and territory-specific statutory frameworks about anti-discrimination, industrial relations, and workers’ compensation.
Major Court and Tribunal Decisions in 2025
Caroline Kelly
Abstract
This article explores significant court and tribunal decisions in Australian labour law in 2025. It does so according to nine key categories or themes which span a broad range of subjects and jurisdictions. A number of the selected cases or categories of cases shed important light upon the interpretation and application of relatively new provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (‘FW Act’) which were introduced as part of the Closing Loopholes reforms including in relation to employment status; delegates’ rights; same job, same pay provisions; and flexible working arrangements. Others clarify parts of the FW Act which have heretofore received little attention, including the meaning of genuine redundancy and the concept of political opinion in unlawful termination. Yet others consider complex questions of award interpretation; interaction of award entitlements with contractual terms and statutory provisions; and questions of civil penalties and deterrence. The article concludes by drawing some observations from the selected cases and categories relating to, among other things, the protective purposes of the FW Act; the challenges presented by evolving and sometimes conflicting expectations about flexibility in the modern world of work; major compliance failures by large or publicly significant employers; and the significance of procedural obligations imposed upon employers under awards and legislation.
This article explores significant court and tribunal decisions in Australian labour law in 2025. It does so according to nine key categories or themes which span a broad range of subjects and jurisdictions. A number of the selected cases or categories of cases shed important light upon the interpretation and application of relatively new provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (‘FW Act’) which were introduced as part of the Closing Loopholes reforms including in relation to employment status; delegates’ rights; same job, same pay provisions; and flexible working arrangements. Others clarify parts of the FW Act which have heretofore received little attention, including the meaning of genuine redundancy and the concept of political opinion in unlawful termination. Yet others consider complex questions of award interpretation; interaction of award entitlements with contractual terms and statutory provisions; and questions of civil penalties and deterrence. The article concludes by drawing some observations from the selected cases and categories relating to, among other things, the protective purposes of the FW Act; the challenges presented by evolving and sometimes conflicting expectations about flexibility in the modern world of work; major compliance failures by large or publicly significant employers; and the significance of procedural obligations imposed upon employers under awards and legislation.
Inconsistencies in Industrial Manslaughter Laws and Category 1 Reckless Offences in Australia: Same, Same — But Different?
Trajce Cvetkovski and Neville Weston
Abstract
The introduction of industrial manslaughter laws in every Australian jurisdiction suggests a consistent approach to the prosecution of serious workplace health and safety crimes. However, this article argues these laws, and recent amendments to Category 1 reckless offences, have resulted in significant inconsistencies which have undermined the goal of legislative uniformity. A comparative analysis of these provisions reveals substantial differences. A disjointed approach has created a patchwork of legal obligations for organisations operating nationally. This article contends that the lack of harmonisation poses significant challenges for corporate compliance and raises concerns regarding the equitable application of criminal sanctions for officers. In particular, the expanded scope for alternative offences in the commission of serious crimes, and the divergent approaches to attribution of individual conduct to corporate entities through imputation complicate the landscape of workplace safety law in Australia. The article concludes that ad hoc and incremental changes have created unintended consequences for national legislative reform.
The introduction of industrial manslaughter laws in every Australian jurisdiction suggests a consistent approach to the prosecution of serious workplace health and safety crimes. However, this article argues these laws, and recent amendments to Category 1 reckless offences, have resulted in significant inconsistencies which have undermined the goal of legislative uniformity. A comparative analysis of these provisions reveals substantial differences. A disjointed approach has created a patchwork of legal obligations for organisations operating nationally. This article contends that the lack of harmonisation poses significant challenges for corporate compliance and raises concerns regarding the equitable application of criminal sanctions for officers. In particular, the expanded scope for alternative offences in the commission of serious crimes, and the divergent approaches to attribution of individual conduct to corporate entities through imputation complicate the landscape of workplace safety law in Australia. The article concludes that ad hoc and incremental changes have created unintended consequences for national legislative reform.
Practice and Procedure
Pecuniary Penalty Orders in Fair Work Act Sexual Harassment Claims: Are They an Effective Deterrent?
Tae Kim
Abstract
The express prohibition against sexual harassment in s 527D(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (‘FW Act’) has been in place since 6 March 2023. Introduced following Recommendation 28 of the Respect@Work: National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces report (‘Respect@Work Report’), and enacted pursuant to the foreign affairs power, this provision enables sexual harassment claims to be brought under the FW Act. A s 527D(1) contravention can attract a pecuniary penalty, alongside other remedies including compensation and injunctive orders.
This article examines the extent to which pecuniary penalty orders (or the risk of such an order) in the FW Act sexual harassment claims may operate as a deterrent against sexual harassment and influence organisational behaviour in addressing and preventing sexual harassment. It does so by, firstly, examining the limitations in the remedies that are presently available for sexual harassment claims under state and federal anti-discrimination laws (whilst noting present reform proposals in this context) and considering how authorities concerning the application of the FW Act’s penalty regime may apply to contraventions of s 527D(1). Secondly, it considers the procedural limitations that apply before penalties for an alleged contravention of s 527D(1) can be sought, and the Fair Work Ombudsman’s (‘FWO’) potential enforcement role in this context, to assess how these matters may enhance or diminish deterrence against conduct that contravenes s 527D(1). Finally, this article briefly analyses cognate provisions in Western Australia and New South Wales industrial legislation to examine how certain aspects of these regimes may impact the deterrent effect of penalties under the FW Act’s regime, especially where (as is the case in Western Australia) a worker can bring a sexual harassment claim in either jurisdiction even if they are a national system employee.
The express prohibition against sexual harassment in s 527D(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (‘FW Act’) has been in place since 6 March 2023. Introduced following Recommendation 28 of the Respect@Work: National Inquiry into Sexual Harassment in Australian Workplaces report (‘Respect@Work Report’), and enacted pursuant to the foreign affairs power, this provision enables sexual harassment claims to be brought under the FW Act. A s 527D(1) contravention can attract a pecuniary penalty, alongside other remedies including compensation and injunctive orders.
This article examines the extent to which pecuniary penalty orders (or the risk of such an order) in the FW Act sexual harassment claims may operate as a deterrent against sexual harassment and influence organisational behaviour in addressing and preventing sexual harassment. It does so by, firstly, examining the limitations in the remedies that are presently available for sexual harassment claims under state and federal anti-discrimination laws (whilst noting present reform proposals in this context) and considering how authorities concerning the application of the FW Act’s penalty regime may apply to contraventions of s 527D(1). Secondly, it considers the procedural limitations that apply before penalties for an alleged contravention of s 527D(1) can be sought, and the Fair Work Ombudsman’s (‘FWO’) potential enforcement role in this context, to assess how these matters may enhance or diminish deterrence against conduct that contravenes s 527D(1). Finally, this article briefly analyses cognate provisions in Western Australia and New South Wales industrial legislation to examine how certain aspects of these regimes may impact the deterrent effect of penalties under the FW Act’s regime, especially where (as is the case in Western Australia) a worker can bring a sexual harassment claim in either jurisdiction even if they are a national system employee.
Book Review
A Fair Day’s Work: The Quest to Win Back Time, Sean Scalmer
Christopher Arup