PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr GREGG (Deakin) (11:28): 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. The DEPUTY SPEAKER ( Mr Wilkie ): Is the motion seconded?
Ms Fernando: I second the motion and I reserve my right to speak.