Hubbry Logo
WorkChoicesWorkChoicesMain
Open search
WorkChoices
Community hub
WorkChoices
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
WorkChoices
WorkChoices
WorkChoices
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005
Coat of Arms of Australia
Parliament of Australia
  • An act to amend the Workplace Relations Act of 1996.
Enacted byParliament of Australia

WorkChoices was the name given to changes made to the federal industrial relations laws in Australia by the Howard government in 2005, being amendments to the Workplace Relations Act 1996 by the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005, sometimes referred to as the Workplace Relations Amendment Act 2005, that came into effect on 27 March 2006.[1][2]

"WorkChoices: A new workplace relations system": WorkChoices logo from the Federal Government's advertising campaign.

In May 2005, Prime Minister John Howard informed the Australian House of Representatives that the federal government intended to reform Australian industrial relations laws by introducing a unified national system. WorkChoices was ostensibly designed to improve employment levels and national economic performance by dispensing with unfair dismissal laws for companies under a certain size, removing the "no disadvantage test" which had sought to ensure workers were not left disadvantaged by changes in legislation, thereby promoting individual efficiency and requiring workers to submit their certified agreements directly to Workplace Authority rather than going through the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. It also made adjustments to a workforce's ability to legally go on strike, enabling workers to bargain for conditions without collectivised representation, and significantly restricting trade union activity.

The passing and implementation of the new laws was strongly opposed by the left side of politics, particularly the trade union movement. It was argued that the laws stripped away basic employee rights and were fundamentally unfair. The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), the peak association for Australian trade unions, consistently ran television advertisements attacking the new laws and launching its "Your Rights at Work" campaign opposing the changes.[3] The campaign involved mass rallies and marches, television and radio advertisements, judicial action, and e-activism. The week of action culminated on 1 July 2005 with a "SkyChannel" meeting of union delegates and members organised by Unions NSW. The meeting was followed by a large rally in Sydney and events in regional areas. Individual state governments also opposed the changes. For example, the Victorian Government introduced the Victorian Workplace Rights Advocate as a form of political resistance to the changes.

WorkChoices was a major issue in the 2007 federal election, with the Australian Labor Party (ALP) led by Kevin Rudd vowing to abolish it. Labor won government at the 2007 election and repealed the whole of the WorkChoices legislation and replaced it with the Fair Work Act 2009.

WorkChoices changes

[edit]

WorkChoices made a number of significant changes to the Workplace Relations Act 1996, including:[1][2]

Scope of the system

[edit]

Before the commencement of WorkChoices the Commonwealth relied on the conciliation and arbitration power (section 51(xxxv) of the Constitution) which provides that the Commonwealth may make laws with respect to "conciliation and arbitration for the prevention and settlement of industrial disputes extending beyond the limits of any one State".

The Howard government sought to bring as many employees under WorkChoices as was within its constitutional powers. It relied on the corporations power (Section 51(xx) of the Constitution of Australia) extending its coverage to an estimated 85% of Australian employees. All employees of "constitutional corporations" (i.e. trading, financial, and foreign corporations) became covered by the WorkChoices system. Other constitutional powers used by the federal government to extend the scope of the legislation included the territories power to cover the Australian territories, including the external territories of the Christmas and Cocos Islands, the external affairs power, the interstate and overseas trade and commerce power, and the powers of the Commonwealth to legislate for its own employees. Victoria had voluntarily referred its industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth in 1996, under section 51(xxxvii) of the Constitution.

While one of the purposes of these changes was to provide a single national industrial relations system, in practice, each of the States' systems (except Victoria and the territories) remained in force. State industrial relations systems continued to apply to employers that were not covered by federal agreements (Australian workplace agreements or collective agreements), bound to a federal award, or were not incorporated and trading, financial or foreign organisations. Employers that remained in the State systems included sole traders, partnerships, incorporated associations which are not "trading and financial corporations" and state government bodies.

Court decisions may be required to establish whether an organisation falls under this definition; areas of contention include local government and incorporated associations that undertake some trading activities, such as not-for-profit organisations. There have been several test cases in state and federal jurisdictions, including Bysterveld v Shire of Cue[4] and Bankstown Handicapped Children's Centre Association Inc v Hillman.[5] The general principles established by this case and similar cases since the introduction of WorkChoices were that the types of activities carried out by an individual organisation and the extent and value of these activities must be assessed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the activities are considered substantially "trading and financial".[6]

Significant changes

[edit]

Changing dismissal protection laws for most employees

[edit]

WorkChoices contained provisions relating to both unfair dismissal and unlawful termination, which are separate matters. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) retained some of its role in hearing unfair dismissal and unlawful termination cases, but increased the emphasis on mediation and conciliation. It also reduced the timeframe within which employees were able to lodge such claims; claims had to be lodged within 21 days from the date of termination. Employees could apply for an extension of this timeframe,[7] but a review of published decisions shows that extensions were infrequently granted. Fees applied for applications, at one time $55.70.[8]

Both unfair dismissal and unlawful termination claims went through an initial hearing and compulsory conciliation conference at the AIRC. Only when the conciliation was unsuccessful and a conciliation certificate issued could the claim proceed to the next step. For unfair dismissal claims, the claim proceeded to arbitration by the AIRC, where a Member of the Commission could issue a binding decision. For unlawful termination claims, the claim proceeded to a court with appropriate jurisdiction such as the Federal Court or the Industrial Division of the Federal Magistrates Court.[9]

Prior to WorkChoices, unfair dismissal protections existed in awards or through state industrial relation commissions. The changes to dismissal laws was part of WorkChoices which reduced the protections of previous unfair dismissal laws, which were introduced at a federal level by the Labor government of Paul Keating in 1993. The arguments for these changes related to creating jobs by removing the burden on business of dismissing unsuitable employees. Arguments against the changes included the lack of job security for employees.

WorkChoices introduced several restrictions on who was able to lodge an unfair dismissal claim with the AIRC. Unfair dismissal was defined by the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the Act) as dismissal which is "harsh, unjust or unreasonable."[10] Employees had to be working for a business that had more than 100 employees, and served a qualifying period of 6 months to claim unfair dismissal. Other reasons that excluded an employee from taking unfair dismissal action included where an employee was employed on a seasonal basis or on a contract of employment for a specified period or task, employed on a probationary period that was reasonable and determined in advance, a short-term casual employee, a trainee engaged for a specific period, or an employee not employed under an award or workplace agreement and earning more than $101,300 per year.[8][11]

Significantly, the Act also excluded employees who were dismissed for "genuine operational reasons or reasons including genuine operational reasons". "Genuine operational reasons" were defined in the Act as "reasons of an economic, technological, structural or similar nature."[7] Interpretation of this clause by the AIRC had created precedent for a broad application of this section of the Act. In Carter v Village Cinemas, the Full Bench of the AIRC decided upon appeal that an operational reason need only be a reason for dismissal, not the sole or dominant reason for dismissal.[12][13] In another significant decision, Andrew Cruickshank v Priceline Pty Ltd, Mr Cruickshank was employed at Priceline on a package of $101,150. He was terminated and Priceline subsequently hired a new employee in the same position on a package of $65,000–$75,000. Priceline claimed, successfully, that they had not breached the unfair dismissal provisions of the Act, as the dismissal saved the business money, therefore was for a reason including a genuine operational reason.[14]

Unlawful termination encompassed several parts; notice of termination, Centrelink notification, and prohibited reasons. Under Section 661 of the Act, employees, other than excluded employees (including casual employees with less than 12 months' regular ongoing service, apprentices) were required to be given a specified period of notice of termination or payment in lieu of this notice. Where this was not provided to an employee, an unlawful termination application could have been lodged. In certain circumstances where a business terminates 15 or more employees, the business needed to give written notice to a body prescribed by the Workplace Relations Regulations 2006,[15] currently Centrelink.[16]

Prohibited reasons for termination included discriminatory reasons such as age, race, national extraction, political opinion, sex, sexual preference, religion, marital status, disability, pregnancy and family responsibilities; refusal to sign an Australian workplace agreement (AWA) (however, it was not prohibited to deny employment to a new employee who refuses to sign an AWA); being involved in proceedings against an employer for alleged breach of the law; membership or non-membership of a union or participation in union activities; and absence from work due to illness or injury, parental leave or emergency management activities.[17] Unlike unfair dismissal provisions, there were no restrictions on employees who can lodge unlawful termination claims for prohibited reasons.

Removing the "No Disadvantage Test" for agreements

[edit]

Prior to the WorkChoices coming into force, certified agreements,[18] subsequently called Collective Agreements (CAs)[19] and individual Australian workplace agreements (AWAs),[20] had to pass a No Disadvantage Test. This test compared a proposed agreement to an underpinning and relevant award that had or should have covered employees up until the proposal for an agreement. The No Disadvantage Test weighed the benefits of the award against the proposed agreement to ensure that, overall, employees were no worse off.[21]

WorkChoices required that employers provide employees with five minimum entitlements, which covered maximum ordinary working hours, annual leave, parental leave, personal/carer's leave and minimum pay scales. These five minimum entitlements were referred to as the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard. However, the standard did not have any bearing on agreements that were certified prior to the commencement of WorkChoices: Notional Agreements Preserving State Awards (NAPSAs) if their conditions were more generous than what is provided for under the standard, those conditions will continue to apply.

Those who supported the scrapping of the No Disadvantage Test claimed that it was too complex and argued that its removal would create more opportunities for unemployed people to be offered a job. The example of "Billy" was used in material supporting the Government's position. Unions and other groups opposed to WorkChoices claimed that Billy was a perfect example of why the new laws were unfair and would lead to bosses exploiting their workers.[1]

In response to widespread criticism, the government introduced a fairness test to replace the standard. However, the legislation was not retrospective and so did not apply to agreements created between the inception of the original WorkChoices legislation on 27 March 2006 and when the Fairness Test became operative on 7 May 2007.

Streamlined process for agreement certification

[edit]

Previously, certified agreements, which were collective agreements about employment entitlements and obligations, made by an employer directly with employees or with unions, had to be lodged and certified in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC).

The new legislated changes transferred responsibility for overseeing the agreement certification process to the Workplace Authority, which had some of its other powers of investigation transferred to the Workplace Ombudsman. Now instead of appearing before a Commissioner at the AIRC, parties to a collective agreement were only required to lodge the agreement with the Workplace Authority.

This new process was criticised by those opposed to WorkChoices as they believed that it would give unions less opportunity to scrutinise and intervene where they believed an agreement had been unfairly drafted. However, the government stated in response that the intention of this part of the Act was to improve the turn-around time for agreement certification. In addition, the newly amended Act provided for substantial penalties upon employers, employees and unions where a collective agreement did not comply with the new regulations or included prohibited content.

Office of the Employment Advocate survey

[edit]

The Office of the Employment Advocate, now known as the Workplace Authority, conducted a survey ending in September 2006 which showed the following results with respect to 'protected' conditions lost in WorkChoices legislation: of all AWAs sampled, 88 per cent abolished or 'modified' overtime rates; 89 per cent of AWAs either abolished or 'modified' shiftwork loading; 91 per cent abolished or 'modified' monetary allowances; 85 per cent abolished or 'modified incentive payments; 82 per cent abolished or 'modified' public holiday payments; and 83 per cent abolished or 'modified' rest breaks. In each of these cases conditions were more often abolished than modified, and all modifications represented decreases in conditions. Lastly, though 66 per cent of AWAs resulted in wage increases, 52 per cent of these increases were unquantified or not guaranteed.[22]

Passage into law

[edit]
Greg Combet, Secretary of the Australian Council of Trade Unions, tells a media conference on 2 November 2005 that "the Australian labour movement will overturn this legislation, no matter how long it takes"
The then Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews, who introduced the Australian industrial relations legislation, speaking at a press conference on 8 November 2005

The Workplace Relations Amendment (WorkChoices) Bill 2005 (Cth) was introduced into the Australian House of Representatives on 2 November 2005 by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Kevin Andrews. The Australian Labor Party claimed it was not provided with enough copies of the Bill when it entered the House and mounted a campaign against the Bill in the House throughout the day. During Question Time, Opposition members continually interjected while Government members were speaking, leading the Speaker (and later the Deputy Speaker) to remove 11 of them.[23]

On the same day, the Senate referred the Bill to its Employment, Workplace Relations and Education Committee. The committee allowed five days for submissions to be made to the committee, with the closing date being 9 November 2005. Five days of hearings were scheduled to be held at Parliament House in Canberra commencing 14 November with the committee reporting to the Senate on 22 November. The decision to have a rather short inquiry was criticised by Labor, who claimed that it was an attempt by the Government to avoid proper scrutiny of the Bill.[24] By 9 November, the Senate committee had received more than 4,500 submissions, of which only 173 were published on its website. The committee did not individually acknowledge and publish all submissions, due to the large number of submissions, at least partially resulting from the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) campaign against WorkChoices, which included setting up a form on its website by which people could make a submission.

Kim Beazley in November 2005 declaring Labor will "oppose the Howard government's industrial relations legislation in every respect, at every stage until the next election"

The Bill passed through the House of Representatives on 10 November and was introduced into the Senate later that day by Special Minister of State, Senator Eric Abetz.[25][26]

On 14 November the Senate Inquiry began its five-day hearing—in which only a fraction of the submissions were heard—with the submissions of State and Territory Industrial Relations Ministers and representatives. The representatives were each allowed only seven minutes to address the Inquiry, during which they criticised the package as being unconstitutional and undermining the rights and conditions of workers.[27] The Bill was passed, with amendments, by the Senate, by a vote of 35–33 on 2 December 2005.

The Bill received Royal Assent on 14 December and the parts concerning the Australian Fair Pay Commission, wages for school based trainees and apprentices, and redundancy pay for small employers came into force immediately from that date.

The Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations released the first set of regulations for the Bill on 17 March 2006 and following that the complete Act was proclaimed by Australia's Governor-General Michael Jeffery. The Act commenced on 27 March 2006.

In July 2007, a biography of John Howard said he pushed the WorkChoices legislation through in 2006 so it would not be announced in an election year, and that several cabinet ministers expressed concerns that the legislation would disadvantage too many workers.[28][29]

Campaigns and counter-campaigns

[edit]
"Your Rights at Work" is the name of a campaign launched by the Australian labour movement since the introduction of WorkChoices, resulting in widespread coverage through mass protest rallies.

High Court challenge

[edit]

The ACTU's media campaign triggered a government counter-campaign promoting the reforms. Stage one of the government campaign preceded the release of the legislation and cost approximately $46 million,[30] including advertisements from both the government and the Business Council of Australia,[31] information booklets and a hotline.[32] Government polling of the period August 2005 to February 2006, not released until March 2008, revealed that the government's advertising campaign failed to make workers less apprehensive about WorkChoices.[30]

The ALP, minor parties and the ACTU attacked the advertising campaign, with ACTU President Sharan Burrow describing the advertisements as deceitful party-political advertising funded through taxes.[33] The Government argued that such expenditure is normal procedure when introducing radical change, citing the example of the GST advertising. However, that advertising was severely criticised at the time, and for the same reasons. The expenditure was challenged in the High Court of Australia by the ALP and the ACTU, in Combet v Commonwealth, on the grounds that the expenditure was not approved by Parliament. On 29 September 2005 the High Court rejected this argument in a majority decision.[34]

National days of protest

[edit]
A view of a rally on 15 November 2005 in La Trobe Street, Melbourne, giving an indication of the size of the crowd

On 15 November 2005, the ACTU organised a national day of protest, during which the ACTU estimated 546,000 people took part in marches and protests in Australia's state capitals and other cities.[35] The rallies were addressed by Labor State Premiers. Other notable Australians, including former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke, also spoke in opposition to the industrial relations changes.

A second national day of protest was held across Australia on 30 November 2006 with rallies or meetings in about 300 sites nationwide. At the MCG the entertainment included Jimmy Barnes and the crowd was addressed by such speakers as the leader of the opposition Kim Beazley. Estimates for the Melbourne crowd ranged from 45,000 to 65,000 people at the MCG and the march to Federation Square. In other cities, an estimated 40,000 people attended a similar rally in Sydney, 20,000 in Brisbane, 7,000 in Adelaide, 3,000 in Perth, 2,000 in Darwin, and 1,000 in Canberra.[36][37]

Online campaigns

[edit]

As part of its campaign against WorkChoices, the ACTU set up the "Your Rights at Work" campaign website, with more than 170,000 people signing up to receive updates about the campaign and the e-list also being part of the online campaign actions. One of the most well-supported campaigns was "Take a Stand Barnaby!", petitioning National Party of Australia Senator Barnaby Joyce to act on his concerns about WorkChoices and vote against them in the Senate in November 2005. Ultimately unsuccessful, the petition received 85,189 signatures, thought by the ACTU to be a record for an Australian online petition at that time.[38]

Other internet activism campaigns undertaken by the Rights at Work website supporters included raising $50,000 in five working days to erect a billboard on Melbourne's Tullamarine Freeway raising awareness of WorkChoices. The online campaigns also targeted employers, like Darrell Lea CEO John Tolmie. In April, Mr Tolmie bowed to pressure and halted plans to shift his workforce onto AWA individual contracts[39] after 10,000 Rights at Work supporters emailed him asking him to reconsider.[40]

High Court challenge

[edit]
Main article: New South Wales v Commonwealth (2006)

At the commencement of the WorkChoices reforms every state and territory of Australia had a Labor government. The States lodged a challenge to the Constitutional validity of WorkChoices in the High Court of Australia. Various union groups also lodged their own challenge in the High Court. The High Court heard arguments between 4 May 2006 and 11 May 2006. On 14 November 2006 the High Court, by a 5 to 2 majority, rejected the challenge, upholding the Government's use of the constitutional corporations power as a constitutionally valid basis for the WorkChoices reforms.[41]

Political reactions and consequences

[edit]

When it was tabled in the Parliament, there was significant concerns from civil libertarians and the Opposition that the Bill was passed far too quickly for those voting on it to actually read the document closely, and that insufficient physical copies of the bill had been given to the Opposition to read before a vote was held.[42]

Employer associations such as the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry had indicated they supported WorkChoices at the time, figures that ran counter to the 50 per cent of employers cited in a 2007 AC Nielsen poll as opposing the measures.[43] The Australian labour movement, represented by the Australian Council of Trade Unions, ran a very effective media campaign attacking the proposed changes, and alternate models were proposed by the centre-left Australian Labor Party (ALP), who won the subsequent election in a landslide. The Liberal (center-right) Government at that time used federal funds to produce and air an advertising campaign promoting WorkChoices, a decision that which was criticised by the federal opposition and challenged in the High Court. In addition, the state governments of Australia (all of which were Labor at the time) used the High Court to challenge the legality of the Commonwealth using the Corporations power to sidestep the usual parliamentary oversight and implement WorkChoices, but were ruled against.

WorkChoices was not a 2004 Liberal party election policy.[44] However, following the 2004 federal election, the Liberal–National coalition held a majority in both houses of parliament, and amendments were introduced into the House of Representatives on 2 November 2005.[45] A senate inquiry was held into the Bill from 14 November 2005 to 22 November 2005. The length of this was criticised by the Opposition as being too short.[24] A survey by the Workplace Authority found that although most AWAs (Australian workplace agreement) removed some leave loadings, this was also accompanied by a wage rise in most cases.[46] WorkChoices was passed by the Senate on 2 December 2005.[45] The primary changes came into effect on 27 March 2006.

In December 2005, the federal ALP caucus formed an Industrial Relations Taskforce in order to investigate the adverse effects of the legislation, chaired by Brendan O'Connor, with special emphasis on the impact on regional and rural communities, women and young people. During 2006, the Taskforce traveled to every state and territory in Australia, convening meetings with individuals, employers, church and community groups and trade unions, collecting testimony in order to inform federal Labor's policy response and to publicise instances of actual exploitation. An interim report, "WorkChoices: A Race to the Bottom" was launched by Opposition Leader Kim Beazley at Parliament House, Canberra on 20 June 2006, and widely distributed.[47]

WorkChoices was a prominent issue in the defeat of the centre-right Howard Liberal government at the 2007 federal election. The centre-left Rudd Labor government dismantled the legislation in 2008, declaring it "dead".[48]

"WorkChoices" brand discarded

[edit]
A spoof "15-dollar" note issued by unions criticising Joe Hockey's role as the main spokesperson on the WorkChoices policy during the 2007 election campaign

The Australian Government stopped using the name "WorkChoices" to describe its industrial relations changes on 17 May 2007.[49] Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey said the brand had to be dropped due to the union and community campaign against the WorkChoices laws. "It has resonated because it has been the most sophisticated and articulate political campaign in the history of this country."[50] The ACTU countered that the name may have changed but the laws were the same.[51] The Government did not rename the brand, but did launch a new advertising campaign that did not refer specifically to WorkChoices.[52] This gave rise to the jibe from critics and commentators alike that the policy was one that dare not speak its name, an allusion to the euphemism coined by Lord Alfred Douglas for homosexuality.[53] Another notable curiosity was the continuation of the website.[54]

Legacy

[edit]
Kevin Rudd (second from right) campaigning against WorkChoices at Labour Day 2007

Kevin Rudd took over the Australian Labor Party leadership on 4 December 2006, and in the process reaffirming his opposition to WorkChoices. As Labor won government at the 2007 federal election, it retained a federal rather than states-based system. Additionally, it planned to phase out Australian workplace agreements (AWAs) over a period of years with a preference of collective agreements and awards with an exclusion to those earning over $100,000. Unfair dismissal laws were to be restored to all businesses; however, employees joining companies with under 15 employees will be placed under a twelve-month probationary period.[55] Restrictive right of entry rules in to workplaces for unions introduced under WorkChoices were to remain and secret ballots (rather than open ballots) to decide on carrying out strikes were to continue, which would become banned except during periods of collective bargaining.[56] The dismantling of the group of industrial relations bodies created by the government would also occur, and in their place a service known as "Fair Work Australia" would be created.[57]

Kevin Rudd used part of the 2007 election debate to argue that the Liberal Party was being influenced by the H. R. Nicholls Society to make further reforms to industrial relations, citing Nick Minchin's attendance to last year's H. R. Nicholls Society conference, where he told the audience that the coalition knew its reform to WorkChoices were not popular but the process of change must continue,[58] and that "there is still a long way to go ... awards, the IR commission, all the rest of it".[59] The Australian Labor Party stated that "We know the HR Nicholls society supports the abolition of awards, supports the abolition of the minimum wage, supports the abolition of the independent umpire, the Industrial Relations Commission".[60]

In 2007, the Society criticised the WorkChoices legislation for creating even more regulation. The Society, which in fact supports deregulation of the labour market to the extent that employers and employees simply form contracts with each other and then deal with any disputes via the courts, admonished the WorkChoices model particularly for its length and the amount of red tape, claiming it was "all about regulation" and comparing it to the "old Soviet system of command and control", as well as on federalist grounds saying "This attempt on his part to diminish the role of the states, to concentrate all power in Canberra, is very much to Australia's detriment".[61] Society President Ray Evans stated that in creating WorkChoices "John Howard has assumed an omnipotence that Labor will inherit and to which no mortal should aspire. It will end in tears."[62] Des Moore stated on behalf of the Society that "The HR Nicholls Society is very disappointed with the work choices changes."[63]

Howard's successor as leader of the Liberal Party, Brendan Nelson declared that his party has "listened and learned" from the Australian public. He also declared that WorkChoices was "dead" and would never be resurrected as part of Coalition policy, and called on Rudd to move quickly to introduce draft industrial relations legislation.[64] Former IR minister Joe Hockey said the laws "went too deep" but were introduced with "the best intentions". "As I said yesterday and I've said since election day, WorkChoices is dead, and there is an overwhelming mandate for the Labor Party's policy of tearing up WorkChoices," he said.[65]

Former Prime Minister John Howard broke his post-election silence in March 2008 by attacking Rudd's industrial relations policy while defending WorkChoices.[66]

In March 2008 Federal Industrial Relations Minister Julia Gillard revealed that the previous government had spent $121 million on what she described as WorkChoices propaganda including promotional material such as 98,000 mousepads, 77,000 pens and 100,000 plastic folders.[67]

On 19 March 2008, a bill was passed in the Senate that prevented new AWAs from being made, and set up provisions for workers to be transferred from AWAs into intermediate agreements.[68]

On 27 March 2008, the ban on new AWAs came into effect in Australia. The date was chosen by Acting Prime Minister Julia Gillard to have the law given royal assent as it coincided with the second anniversary of the WorkChoices legislation. "On this two-year anniversary of WorkChoices, we are here to start burying WorkChoices," announced Julia Gillard. Brendan Nelson, Leader of the Opposition, made it clear that the Liberal-National Coalition will not seek to reintroduce AWAs, saying: "I made it clear on behalf of the Coalition prior to Christmas that WorkChoices is dead."[69]

Greens MP Adam Bandt criticised the 2014 budget as allowing WorkChoices to make an "insidious comeback".[70]

In January 2014, Liberal Prime Minister Tony Abbott distanced himself from senator Cory Bernardi after the latter called for more flexible industrial relations laws.[71]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

WorkChoices

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005, commonly referred to as WorkChoices, was a comprehensive reform to Australia's federal industrial relations framework enacted by the Coalition government under Prime Minister John Howard in December 2005, with key provisions commencing on 27 March 2006. The legislation prioritized individual Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) over collective enterprise agreements, streamlined federal and state award systems into a unified national structure with simplified minimum conditions, and diminished the role of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in favor of direct employer-employee negotiations to enhance labor market flexibility and productivity. Leveraging the constitutional corporations power, WorkChoices extended federal oversight to most private sector workplaces after the High Court upheld its validity against state challenges in November 2006, effectively sidelining residual state systems. Proponents argued the changes would reduce unemployment and spur economic growth by curtailing union influence and enabling tailored employment terms, coinciding with a period of robust expansion where the national unemployment rate fell from approximately 5.1% in early 2006 to 4.2% by late 2007. However, the reforms ignited fierce controversy, with trade unions and the opposition Labor Party decrying them as an assault on collective bargaining and worker protections, sparking nationwide protests organized by the Australian Council of Trade Unions and the "Your Rights at Work" campaign that played a pivotal role in the Howard government's electoral defeat in November 2007. Empirical assessments of its impacts remain debated, with some analyses indicating modest gains in employment flexibility amid overall wage growth, though critics—often aligned with labor institutions—highlighted potential disparities in bargaining power and uneven application across demographics.

Background and Rationale

Pre-WorkChoices Industrial Relations Framework

The Australian industrial relations system prior to the WorkChoices reforms operated under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (WRA), which commenced on 25 November 1996 and represented a partial decentralization from the longstanding centralized arbitration model established by the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904. The WRA retained core elements of tribunal oversight through the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), including award-based minimum standards and national wage cases, while introducing provisions for enterprise-level bargaining to promote flexibility. This framework covered approximately 80% of the workforce in the federal jurisdiction by the early 2000s, with states maintaining parallel systems except for Victoria, which referred its powers to the Commonwealth in 1996, enabling a unified national approach for most private sector employers. Central to the system were awards, which set legally enforceable minimum terms for wages, hours, leave, and other conditions, simplified under the WRA to 20 allowable matters to reduce complexity while preserving a safety net. The AIRC conducted annual safety net reviews, delivering flat-rate wage increases—such as $10 per week in 1997 and $14 in 1998—to low-paid award-reliant workers, contributing to real wage growth averaging 1.5-2% annually in the late amid low . occurred via certified agreements, approved by the AIRC if they passed a no-disadvantage test against awards, often incorporating productivity offsets; by 2004, over 4,000 such agreements covered about 40% of federal employees, frequently yielding wages above award rates but sometimes trading off penalty loadings. Individual Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) were permitted as an alternative, subject to AIRC certification ensuring no net disadvantage, though they represented a minority (under 5% of agreements by 2005) and required disclosure of union alternatives. Unfair dismissal protections applied to most employees after a qualifying period—three months for businesses with fewer than 15 employees or six months otherwise—allowing AIRC or court remedies for harsh, unjust, or unreasonable terminations, with a $50 filing introduced in 1996 reducing frivolous claims by about 20%. Unions retained significant roles, including representation in bargaining and protected during designated periods, though right-of-entry was restricted to permit holders for discussions or inspections, and pattern bargaining across enterprises was common, sometimes leading to coordinated strikes. Industrial disputation declined markedly, with working days lost per 1,000 employees falling to 1913 lows by 1997-1998, attributed to the shift toward voluntary agreements over compulsory . The AIRC's powers were curtailed in favor of , emphasizing enterprise-level , while federal jurisdiction extended to constitutional corporations under section 51(xx) of the , leaving non-corporate state employers outside until later referrals.

Identified Deficiencies in the Centralized System

The pre-WorkChoices industrial relations framework in relied on a highly centralized system managed primarily by the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC), which determined wages and conditions through annual national wage cases and a vast network of awards. This approach imposed uniform wage adjustments across industries, disregarding variations in enterprise-level , regional economic conditions, or firm-specific needs, resulting in significant inflexibility. Proponents of reform, including the , identified this centralization as a key deficiency, arguing it distorted labor markets by preventing wages from aligning with marginal and hindering efficient . Empirical analyses supported claims of real wage rigidity, where adverse shocks led to higher rather than wage adjustments, with Australia's real wage rigidity exceeding that in more flexible economies during the and early . A major criticism was the complexity and proliferation of the award system, which encompassed over 4,000 federal and state awards by the early , each specifying detailed minimum terms like penalties, loadings, and allowances. This structure fostered "award creep," an incremental expansion of entitlements through AIRC decisions and union advocacy, elevating labor costs without commensurate gains and imposing administrative burdens on employers. The contended that such over-regulation stifled innovation and competitiveness, as awards often overlapped with state systems and failed to adapt to modern work patterns like part-time or casual . In June 2005, the AIRC acknowledged this issue by initiating a rationalization process to consolidate awards, signaling inherent inefficiencies in the pre-existing framework. The centralized system also facilitated high levels of industrial disputation, exacerbated by pattern bargaining practices where unions coordinated strikes across sectors to secure industry-wide concessions. recorded some of the highest strike rates among nations in the 1970s and 1980s, with over 2 million working days lost annually in peak years like , often tied to national wage claims rather than firm-specific issues. Reform advocates highlighted how this union-centric model prioritized collective power over individual choice, leading to economic disruptions that deterred investment and employment growth. Data showed a marked decline in disputes following partial decentralization in the , underscoring the system's role in perpetuating conflict. These deficiencies were linked to broader macroeconomic ills, including elevated —peaking at 10.9% in 1993—and subdued growth averaging around 1.3% annually in the , lagging behind deregulated peers. Critics attributed , particularly among youth (over 20% in the early ), to insider-outsider dynamics where protected award wages excluded new entrants from the labor market. The Howard administration argued that the system's bias toward uniformity and collectivism failed to incentivize skill development or flexible practices essential for a service-oriented , necessitating a shift toward individualized agreements to enhance participation and output.

Core Legislative Changes

Expansion of Federal Jurisdiction and Coverage

The Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 fundamentally altered the scope of federal industrial relations jurisdiction by relying primarily on the corporations power under section 51(xx) of the Australian Constitution, rather than the previous emphasis on the conciliation and arbitration power in section 51(xxxv). This shift enabled the Commonwealth to regulate the terms and conditions of employment for employees of constitutional corporations—defined as foreign corporations and trading or financial corporations formed within Australia—irrespective of whether disputes extended beyond state borders. Prior to these amendments, federal coverage was more limited, applying mainly to industries involving interstate trade, specific sectors like maritime and stevedoring, and federal awards, which collectively encompassed roughly 40% of employees through a patchwork of federal and state systems with significant overlap and variation. The Act's provisions, effective from 27 March 2006, extended federal oversight to workplace agreements, awards, and for these corporations and their employees, effectively sidelining state systems for the affected workforce. This expansion was constitutionally validated by the in New South Wales v Commonwealth (2006), where a majority upheld the legislation's validity, ruling that regulating conditions constituted a matter "with respect to" corporations' trading activities. The decision rejected state challenges arguing overreach into traditional state powers over labour relations, affirming the Commonwealth's capacity to create a near-national system without requiring state referrals. As a result, the federal system under WorkChoices was projected to cover up to 85% of Australia's , primarily in the , by bringing employees of incorporated businesses—most medium and large enterprises—under uniform federal rules. Exclusions remained for state and territory public sector employees, sole traders, partnerships without , and certain non-trading entities, preserving limited state jurisdiction for these groups. Transition arrangements allowed a three-year period for state-based instruments to phase out, aiming to minimize immediate disruption while prioritizing a centralized framework to reduce regulatory duplication and enhance national consistency in standards.

Shift to Individual Agreements and AWAs

The Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 fundamentally shifted Australia's framework by prioritizing individual agreements, particularly Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs), over as the primary mechanism for setting employment terms. AWAs, first introduced under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, were redefined and elevated under WorkChoices as direct contracts between an employer and an individual employee or group of employees, covering wages, hours, and conditions without mandatory union involvement. Section 96 of the amended Act specified that AWAs could be made unilaterally by employers and offered to employees, who had the option to accept or reject, but once approved, they superseded applicable awards and collective agreements in cases of overlap, as enshrined in Section 100A. A core change was the abolition of the "no-disadvantage test," which had previously required AWAs to ensure employees were not worse off compared to awards or prior agreements; this removal, effective from March 27, 2006, streamlined certification by the Workplace Authority, reducing administrative hurdles and enabling employers to tailor agreements more closely to business needs, such as linking pay to performance or introducing flexible hours. The Howard government argued this empowered workers with "choice" to negotiate directly, bypassing centralized award systems and union-dominated collective processes, ostensibly to boost productivity by aligning individual incentives with enterprise outcomes. Critics, including unions and labor economists, contended the shift disproportionately favored employers, as empirical analyses of pre-WorkChoices AWAs showed they often stripped penalty rates and overtime loadings—conditions protected under awards—to achieve flexibility, potentially eroding base wages for low-skilled workers. WorkChoices further facilitated the transition by allowing AWAs to operate independently of collective agreements, with provisions for "greenfields" AWAs in new enterprises and simplified termination rules upon agreement expiry, which could revert employees to minimums unless renewed. This marked a departure from the enterprise bargaining model established in the , where collective agreements predominated; under the new regime, individual agreements became the default pathway, with data indicating a surge in lodgments post-2006, though uptake varied by sector, higher in retail and where flexibility demands were acute. The reforms reflected the government's causal view that decentralized, individualized bargaining would drive by reducing rigidities in the pre-existing centralized system, though subsequent studies highlighted uneven wage outcomes, with AWAs frequently tying increases to gains rather than guaranteed rises.

Reforms to Unfair Dismissal Protections

The Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 substantially restricted access to remedies by exempting employees of small businesses—defined as employers with 100 or fewer employees, including full-time, part-time, and regular casual employees employed for at least 12 months—from federal jurisdiction. This exemption applied irrespective of the overall size of a , subject to aggregation rules for related entities to prevent circumvention, and took effect from 27 March 2006 following the Act's commencement. Employees in such businesses retained protections against unlawful termination, such as or for exercising workplace rights, but lost the ability to claim a dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable absent a valid reason related to capacity, conduct, or operational needs. For employees in larger businesses not covered by the exemption, the reforms extended the qualifying period for eligibility to file an claim from three months to six months of continuous service, applicable to those commencing employment after the Act's start date. Dismissals for genuine operational reasons—defined as economic, technological, structural, or similar changes affecting the employer's enterprise—were excluded from unfairness assessments, provided the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) verified their authenticity through a hearing; such cases remained subject to pay obligations where applicable. The criteria for determining unfairness emphasized substantive reasons over procedural fairness, with the AIRC empowered to resolve claims "on the papers" without hearings to expedite processes, and reinstatement deemed the primary remedy only if not impracticable. Remedies for successful claims were limited: compensation was capped at the lesser of six months' remuneration or an indexed amount (initially $47,500 as of 1 July 2005), excluding awards for non-economic loss such as shock, distress, or humiliation, aligning with principles. Procedural deficiencies alone did not render a dismissal unfair if a valid substantive reason existed. The justified these changes as essential to alleviate the regulatory burden on es, which it argued faced average costs of $5,000 to $25,000 per claim, deterring hiring and contributing to an estimated 77,000 lost jobs under prior laws according to a 2001 Melbourne Institute study. A 2005 Sensis Index survey indicated 28% of small businesses viewed laws as a barrier to growth, with the exemption aimed at fostering flexibility in a sector employing the majority of Australian workers. Critics, including unions and Labor opposition, contended the reforms eroded for approximately 4 million workers without commensurate gains, though empirical analyses post-implementation showed mixed evidence on causal impacts, with some studies finding no significant boost in small business hiring attributable to the exemption.

Pattern Bargaining Restrictions and Union Role

The Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 restricted pattern bargaining by prohibiting in support of demands for common wages or conditions across multiple enterprise agreements covering different employers, unless the bargaining representative genuinely tailored terms to each enterprise's circumstances. Pattern bargaining was identified as conduct where a union or agent pursued "identical or nearly identical" terms without regard for site-specific factors, a practice the associated with coordinated strikes and wage pressures in sectors like during the 1990s. Under section 108D of the amended Relations Act 1996, such action lost protected status, exposing participants to legal penalties including fines up to AUD 6,600 per contravention for individuals and AUD 33,000 for organizations. The Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) gained authority to suspend or terminate bargaining periods upon application by an employer if pattern bargaining was deemed to be occurring, effectively halting negotiations and protected for up to three months. This mechanism applied prospectively from the Act's commencement on 1 April 2006, aiming to prevent "flow-on" claims that propagated wage increases across industries, as evidenced in prior disputes like the 1999 Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) campaigns. Multiple-employer agreements remained possible but required AIRC approval, limited to cases of common interests such as identical operations, further decentralizing bargaining. These restrictions curtailed unions' traditional role as coordinators of industry-wide standards, shifting emphasis to enterprise-specific outcomes. Unions could still act as agents for collective agreements, but employer consent was mandatory, and Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs)—individual contracts covering 85% of new agreements by mid-2006—excluded union input entirely. Union right of entry was confined to certified premises with permits, restricted to hours and suspected breaches, reducing on-site organizing. Secret ballots, overseen by the Australian Electoral Commission, were required before protected strikes, with non-compliance risking fines and delaying action by up to 21 days. Collectively, these provisions diminished unions' leverage, as evidenced by a 10% decline in union from to 2008, from 20.4% to 18.4% of the workforce.

Enactment Process

Drafting and Parliamentary Passage

The Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Bill 2005 was drafted by the Australian Government's Department of Employment and Workplace Relations under the direction of Minister Kevin Andrews, building on the Howard Coalition government's 2004 election commitments to overhaul the centralized system. The drafting process incorporated policy elements from prior consultations with employer groups and economic analyses highlighting rigidities in the existing Workplace Relations Act 1996, though it excluded substantive input from unions, which criticized the lack of genuine . The bill's structure emphasized simplifying agreement-making, expanding federal jurisdiction via constitutional corporations power, and curtailing union influence, reflecting the government's first-principles approach to prioritizing direct employer-employee negotiations over defaults. Introduced into the by Kevin Andrews on 2 2005, the bill's second reading speech outlined its intent to foster a "flexible, simple and fair" national system, with Andrews emphasizing reduced reliance on awards and tribunals. Debate in the House spanned late , featuring government arguments for productivity gains against Labor opposition claims of eroded worker protections; it passed the House on 29 2005 by a margin of approximately 80 to 61 votes, leveraging the Coalition's secured after the 2004 election. The bill then moved to the , where the Employment, Workplace Relations and Education References conducted a rapid inquiry from mid-, receiving submissions that highlighted concerns over changes but ultimately did not alter the core provisions due to the government's control of the . Senate debate commenced with second reading on 1 December 2005, amid intense partisan contention, and the bill passed on 2 December 2005 by 35 votes to 33, with Family First Senator Steven Fielding providing a pivotal crossbench vote after negotiations. The legislation received royal assent from Governor-General Michael Jeffery on 14 December 2005, becoming the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 (Act No. 153 of 2005). This swift parliamentary passage, enabled by the Coalition's Senate majority from July 2005, marked a rare instance of transformative federal industrial relations reform without bicameral amendments or referral to a joint committee for compromise.

Constitutional High Court Validation

Following the enactment of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 on 14 December 2005, with principal amendments commencing on 27 March 2006, several Australian states—including , Victoria, , , and —along with certain unions, initiated constitutional challenges in the . The plaintiffs contended that the Act exceeded the Commonwealth's legislative powers, particularly by intruding into state industrial relations domains traditionally regulated under state jurisdiction, and argued that reliance on the corporations power in section 51(xx) of the Constitution was impermissibly broad. They further asserted that the Act undermined the conciliation and arbitration power in section 51(xxxv), which historically supported a more limited federal role in workplace relations. In New South Wales v Commonwealth HCA 52, delivered on 14 November 2006, the High Court dismissed the challenges by a 5:2 majority (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Heydon, and Crennan JJ; Kirby and Callinan JJ dissenting). The majority held that the corporations power in section 51(xx) authorizes the to regulate the industrial relations activities of constitutional corporations—defined as trading or financial corporations formed within the limits of the —including the making, variation, and conditions. This power extends to the "activities, functions, relationships and the business operations" of such corporations, rejecting any doctrinal restriction to mere "external" affairs or subordination to section 51(xxxv). The Court also validated the Act's coverage of non-corporate employers through state referrals of powers under section 51(xxxvii), though the corporations power provided the primary constitutional foundation, enabling of inconsistent state laws for approximately 85-90% of the workforce employed by constitutional corporations. The dissenting justices argued that the Act's scope overstepped constitutional bounds by effectively nationalizing without sufficient ties to corporate character or activities, potentially rendering section 51(xxxv) otiose and encroaching on reserved state powers. Kirby J emphasized , viewing the legislation as an unwarranted expansion beyond the framers' intent for a balanced division of powers. The majority's reasoning, however, affirmed the Act's validity without requiring further justification under narrower heads of power, solidifying the Commonwealth's authority and rendering the Work Choices reforms constitutionally operative nationwide. This outcome expanded federal jurisdiction significantly, as most employers qualified as constitutional corporations, thereby diminishing state regulatory autonomy in workplace matters.

Implementation Mechanisms

Administrative Bodies and Oversight

The Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005 established the Australian Fair Pay Commission (AFPC) as an independent responsible for conducting annual wage reviews and setting the federal , as well as minimum rates for classifications covering approximately 20% of the . The AFPC replaced the Australian Industrial Relations Commission's (AIRC) safety net review function, with its inaugural decision on 2 June 2006 increasing the minimum wage by $26.60 per week to $484.40, prioritizing economic prosperity alongside factors like employment growth and control. This shift aimed to depoliticize wage determinations by insulating them from union influence, though critics argued it diminished protections for low-paid workers by removing the AIRC's broader considerations. The Act also created the Workplace Authority, a new agency tasked with registering and approving Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) and collective agreements, including initial assessments under the no-disadvantage test and later the workplace fairness test introduced in 2007. Operational from March 2006, the Authority processed over 500,000 AWAs by mid-2007, ensuring compliance with minimum standards while facilitating direct employer-employee negotiations without mandatory union involvement. Its oversight role emphasized streamlined administration to reduce delays in agreement certification, contrasting with the prior AIRC's more adversarial processes, though it faced accusations of insufficient scrutiny leading to agreements below conditions in some cases. Complementing these, the Office of the Workplace was empowered under WorkChoices to monitor compliance, educate employers and employees on and obligations, investigate breaches, and enforce penalties for violations such as sham contracting or underpayment. Established to promote voluntary adherence through inspections and litigation, the handled thousands of inquiries annually post-2006, recovering over $10 million in unpaid entitlements by 2008, thereby providing a centralized federal enforcement mechanism that bypassed fragmented state systems. These bodies collectively shifted oversight from the quasi-judicial AIRC toward specialized, executive-focused agencies, enhancing federal control but raising concerns about reduced independence in and protections.

Agreement Certification and No-Disadvantage Test Removal

The no-disadvantage test (NDT), established under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, required the Australian Commission (AIRC) to certify enterprise agreements only if they did not disadvantage employees overall compared to the relevant federal award or prior agreements, assessed on a global basis including wages, conditions, and bargaining history. This test aimed to protect against agreements that traded away award protections without compensatory gains. Under the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005, effective for new agreements from 27 March 2006, the NDT was abolished for both Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) and collective agreements, replaced by mandatory compliance with the Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard. The Standard specified five minimum conditions: a basic hourly set by the Australian Fair Pay Commission, maximum ordinary working hours of 38 per week (or average), four weeks , 10 days paid personal/carer’s leave, and unpaid entitlements, without the broader award benchmarking of the NDT. This shift prioritized procedural requirements, such as genuine agreement by employees, over substantive content evaluation beyond the Standard. Agreement certification transferred from the AIRC to the newly established Workplace Authority, an under the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, which conducted a streamlined approval process focused on formalities like employee and Standard compliance rather than discretionary disadvantage assessments. For AWAs, employers could lodge agreements post-execution with employee signatures, subject to Workplace Authority verification that no occurred and the Standard was met, enabling faster approval—often within days—compared to the AIRC's prior multi-week NDT reviews. Collective agreements followed similar certification but required majority employee support via valid ballots or union authorization. The removal facilitated agreements stripping non-Standard award conditions, such as penalty rates, pay, or shift loadings, provided the five minima were satisfied, ostensibly to enhance flexibility and . However, by August 2007, amid political pressure, amendments introduced a "Fairness Test" for AWAs, reinstating scrutiny of non-Standard conditions against equivalents unless offset by better wages, though existing pre-2007 agreements remained exempt.

Public and Political Campaigns

Pro-Reform Advocacy by Government and Employers

The Howard government advocated WorkChoices as a critical update to Australia's workplace relations framework, emphasizing enhanced flexibility to drive economic performance. Prime Minister John Howard positioned the reforms as necessary to "unleash a new burst of productivity growth," arguing that rigid union-dominated bargaining hindered competitiveness and job creation in a globalized economy. Employment and Workplace Relations Minister Kevin Andrews, in his second reading speech on 2 November 2005, outlined the bill's intent to establish a unified national system, consolidate over 3,000 state and federal awards into 16 allowable matters plus four safety net conditions, and prioritize Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) for direct employer-employee negotiations. Andrews asserted these measures would simplify regulations, reduce litigation, and accommodate demands for individualized arrangements, ultimately fostering more jobs and higher wages through improved productivity. Employer groups, particularly peak bodies representing business interests, endorsed the legislation for aligning industrial laws with market realities and curbing union influence. The Business Council of Australia (BCA), comprising CEOs of large enterprises, submitted to the inquiry on 8 November 2005 that WorkChoices would secure long-term prosperity by promoting flexible work practices, individual choice over collective mandates, and streamlined , which they claimed would boost and . The BCA's Workplace Relations Action Plan highlighted pattern bargaining restrictions and exemptions for businesses with fewer than 100 employees as key to reducing costs and encouraging hiring, particularly for small and medium enterprises facing global competition. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI), advocating for small businesses, supported the reforms for eliminating no-disadvantage tests on AWAs and limiting union access, arguing these would minimize industrial disruptions and enable tailored conditions that enhance without compromising basic entitlements. Employers collectively maintained that prior systems favored adversarial , stifling innovation, whereas WorkChoices empowered direct agreements to reflect diverse workforce needs and business strategies.

Anti-Reform Mobilization by Unions and Labor Party

The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU), led by Secretary , initiated the "Your Rights at Work" campaign shortly after the Howard government's introduction of the WorkChoices bill on 25 October 2005. This effort positioned the reforms as eroding fundamental worker entitlements, including protections and rights, through a multifaceted strategy encompassing television advertisements, door-to-door canvassing, and public rallies. Combet, who addressed crowds at key events, emphasized the campaign's goal of preserving award conditions and limiting employer flexibility in individual agreements. The ACTU coordinated nationwide protests to amplify opposition, with a national day of action on 15 November 2005 featuring demonstrations in capital cities that drew tens of thousands of participants protesting the proposed centralization of industrial relations power. Escalation occurred on 30 November 2006, when the ACTU mobilized hundreds of thousands of workers in synchronized rallies across , including a major gathering at Melbourne's MCG where Combet declared the reforms a threat to working families' security. These actions, supported by state labor councils, aimed to pressure the government and sway public sentiment ahead of the 2007 federal election. The Australian Labor Party (ALP) synchronized its opposition with union mobilization, integrating anti-WorkChoices rhetoric into parliamentary debates and policy platforms. ALP leader committed in 2005 to dismantling the legislation upon gaining office, framing it as an overreach that favored employers at workers' expense. By 2007, under Kevin Rudd's leadership, the party pledged full repeal and replacement with a framework restoring no-disadvantage tests and , leveraging union-grounded to highlight electoral vulnerabilities in marginal seats. This alignment, while straining ALP efforts to appear independent from unions, amplified the campaign's reach through joint advertising and membership drives targeting non-union households.

Media, Protests, and Electoral Influence

The Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) spearheaded the "Your Rights at Work" campaign against WorkChoices, launching a series of s that culminated in a of action on 15 November 2005. This event drew an estimated 150,000 participants in alone, with hundreds of thousands protesting across major cities including , , , and Perth, marking one of the largest coordinated labor mobilizations in since the 1980s. The protests featured rallies, marches, and SkyChannel broadcasts to union venues nationwide, emphasizing claims of eroded worker protections and unfair dismissals under the reforms. Media coverage of the protests and WorkChoices was extensive but often framed through a lens sympathetic to union narratives, with outlets highlighting personal testimonies of alleged job insecurity and pay cuts while downplaying arguments for gains. The countered with a $55 million taxpayer-funded information campaign promoting the legislation's benefits for economic flexibility, yet this effort faced accusations of and failed to shift significantly amid dominant critical reporting. Union-led , including television ads depicting sacking scenarios, amplified opposition messaging, reaching millions and contributing to polls showing majority disapproval of the reforms by mid-2006. WorkChoices emerged as a pivotal issue in the 2007 federal election, fueling Labor's campaign under and contributing to the Coalition's defeat after 11 years in power. Exit polls and post-election analyses indicated that concerns swayed blue-collar voters in marginal seats, with the ACTU's mobilization efforts—described as Australia's most sophisticated non-party political campaign—crediting union door-knocking and ads for shifting traditional Liberal support. The electorate's rejection was underscored by John Howard's loss of his own seat of , with WorkChoices cited as a key factor in eroding the government's working-class base despite low unemployment at the time.

Empirical Impacts

Effects on Employment, Wages, and Productivity

Empirical assessments of WorkChoices' effects on employment indicate sustained growth during its implementation from March 2006 to early 2009, with total employment rising from approximately 10.0 million to 10.6 million persons, driven by strong economic conditions including the resources boom. Unemployment rates declined from 5.1 percent in early 2006 to around 4.2 percent by mid-2008, reflecting broader labor market tightness rather than direct causal links to the reforms, as econometric analyses attribute much of the improvement to commodity price surges and population growth. On wages, aggregate real wage growth averaged about 3.2 percent annually between 2006 and 2009, consistent with pre-reform trends and outpacing , though some sector-specific data suggest slower growth for low-skilled workers transitioning to Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs), which comprised up to 25 percent of federal agreements by 2007 but often traded conditions for base pay adjustments. Studies, including surveys of human resource managers, found no widespread evidence of systematic wage suppression, with AWAs facilitating flexibility that potentially supported retention in tight markets, though critics highlight isolated cases of condition stripping without overall downward pressure on national averages. Productivity impacts remain elusive, with labor productivity growth averaging 1.4 percent per annum from 2006 to 2009, below the peak but aligned with a broader deceleration linked to high displacing capital deepening. Multifactor stagnated during this period, showing no discernible uplift from decentralized or reduced union influence, as confirmed by surveys reporting negligible changes in output per worker attributable to WorkChoices provisions. Independent analyses, such as those by labor economists, emphasize that while flexibility may enhance micro-level in select firms, aggregate effects were muted due to the reforms' limited scope—covering initially only federal jurisdictions—and confounding macroeconomic factors like terms-of-trade gains.

Analyses of Worker Protections and Flexibility Outcomes

The WorkChoices legislation centralized federal control over , establishing 16 national minimum conditions (such as and maximum hours) while permitting Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) and collective agreements to vary beyond these without the prior no-disadvantage test against awards, thereby prioritizing flexibility over uniform protections. This shift aimed to reduce rigidities in hiring, firing, and rostering, but analyses indicate mixed outcomes for worker safeguards, with evidence of condition erosion in individual contracts offset by aggregate economic gains. Empirical examinations of protections highlight vulnerabilities in AWAs, where employees often traded entitlements like shift loadings and pay for small premiums, particularly affecting women and low-paid sectors such as and retail. A qualitative of low-paid workers found that WorkChoices amplified risks of exploitation by enabling employers to bypass , leading to diminished work-life balance and increased casualization without commensurate security gains. Similarly, a review of post-2006 agreements documented systematic reductions in non- benefits, including meal allowances and loadings, in up to 30% of certified deals, attributing this to the absence of protective benchmarks. These findings, drawn from agreement texts and employee reports, suggest causal weakening of in non-union settings, though proponents countered that such variations reflected voluntary choices for tailored arrangements. On flexibility outcomes, decentralized agreements under WorkChoices facilitated employer adjustments to operational needs, such as variable hours and performance-based pay, correlating with reported uplifts in surveyed workplaces. Mark Wooden's assessment, based on economic modeling, projected that reduced union-centric patterns would enhance labor allocation efficiency, potentially raising by 1-2% annually through better matching of skills to roles, though direct causality remained unproven amid the 2005-2008 resources boom. An Australian HR Institute survey of 2007 workplaces indicated moderate uptake of AWAs (around 20% in private firms), with users citing gains in rostering adaptability and speed, but limited overall transformation due to administrative hurdles and employee resistance. Aggregate data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed employment rising by 1.5 million jobs between 2006 and 2008, alongside average weekly earnings growth of 4.5% per year, yet econometric disentangling attributes only marginal flexibility-driven effects, with most gains tied to global demand rather than regulatory shifts. Critiques of protections often emphasize equity gaps, with preliminary employee perception studies revealing 98% reporting adverse impacts like stagnant low-end wages and heightened insecurity, particularly among part-time and respondents. Defenses, including from employer groups, point to the fairness test amendment—which mandated minimum standards reviews—as mitigating excesses, preserving core safeguards while enabling innovation. Overall, while flexibility metrics improved in contract variability, protections analyses reveal a net deregulatory tilt favoring employers, with inconclusive on widespread exploitation due to macroeconomic factors and low AWA penetration (peaking at under 15% of agreements by ).

Criticisms and Defenses

Arguments for Reduced Worker Rights and Exploitation Risks

Critics of the WorkChoices legislation, including trade unions and labor economists, contended that the removal of the no-disadvantage test for Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) enabled employers to draft contracts that collectively disadvantaged workers by stripping away protections such as penalty rates, loadings, and entitlements, thereby increasing vulnerability to exploitation. The test, previously requiring agreements to provide at least equivalent overall benefits to applicable awards or prior agreements, was abolished effective March 27, 2006, with proponents of this change arguing it streamlined approvals, but opponents highlighted cases where AWAs resulted in net losses for low-wage earners reliant on basic conditions. The exemption of businesses with fewer than 100 employees from laws was cited as heightening exploitation risks, particularly for casual and part-time workers in small firms, who comprised over 60% of the workforce affected, by removing recourse against arbitrary terminations motivated by cost-cutting or non-performance unrelated to . This provision, introduced to reduce litigation burdens on small employers, was criticized for disproportionately impacting vulnerable demographics, such as young and migrant workers, who faced diminished without independent , potentially encouraging underpayment or excessive hours to offset hiring caution. Such concerns were amplified by submissions to parliamentary inquiries, noting that procedural safeguards like secret ballots for further eroded collective leverage, tilting power toward employers in decentralized bargaining. Advocates for these critiques, often from union-affiliated , pointed to preliminary employee surveys post-implementation showing perceptions of suppression and inadequate protections among secondary labor market participants, including women and low-skilled employees, who experienced shifts from awards to individual AWAs lacking pattern bargaining support. While empirical growth data from the period showed aggregate increases, detractors argued this masked disparities in non-monetary conditions, with the Council of Trade Unions estimating thousands of agreements approved under WorkChoices that failed to maintain prior standards, fostering a regulatory environment conducive to opportunistic employer practices despite formal settings. These positions, advanced amid systemic institutional opposition to , underscored fears of an formation through diminished state oversight of labor standards.

Counterarguments on Economic Efficiency and Individual Choice

Supporters of WorkChoices maintained that the legislation enhanced by decentralizing from centralized awards and unions to direct employer-employee negotiations, thereby reducing compliance costs—including through simplifying awards and reducing record-keeping mandates—which allowed firms to scale operations with minimal dedicated HR resources, freeing up time and funds for value-creating activities, and alleviating rigidities that stifled . The argued that simplifying the system—through measures like pattern restrictions and streamlined agreement approvals—would foster workplace innovation and adaptability, enabling firms to respond more nimbly to market demands without excessive regulatory overlay. This approach, they contended, aligned incentives for gains, as individual agreements could incorporate performance-based pay and flexible rostering tailored to business needs, contrasting with uniform awards that often locked in inefficiencies. Critics' claims of exploitation were countered by the emphasis on voluntary individual choice, with Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) allowing employees to negotiate terms beyond award minima, such as trading overtime loadings for higher base pay or preferred shift patterns, thereby empowering workers over union-mediated collectives. Employer organizations, including the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, asserted that AWAs delivered "higher productivity, better pay and flexible working conditions," with pre-reform data indicating average annual wage increases under AWAs of around 4-5%, outpacing many collective agreements. The removal of the no-disadvantage test was defended as eliminating a barrier to mutually beneficial deals, where workers could accept variations if overall better off, promoting causal links between effort, flexibility, and rewards rather than one-size-fits-all mandates. Empirical outcomes under WorkChoices included record employment expansion, with over 1.5 million jobs added between 2004 and , and unemployment reaching a 30-year low of 4.2% by March , attributed by proponents to heightened labor market flexibility. Real wages continued to rise at an average annual rate of 3.8% from 2005 to , undermining assertions of widespread stagnation or cuts, while surveys of human resource professionals indicated no significant productivity downturn and potential for improved adaptability in smaller firms. These developments were linked to the reforms' facilitation of individual contracting, which comprised about 25% of new agreements by 2006, offering workers alternatives to union dominance and enabling efficient through voluntary exchanges. Although aggregate growth moderated to 0.76% annually during the period—partly due to capital deepening rather than labor rigidities—defenders argued this reflected broader economic maturity, not reform failures, and that without flexibility gains, surges would have been unattainable amid skill mismatches.

Political Consequences and Repeal

Role in the 2007 Federal Election

WorkChoices emerged as a pivotal issue in the held on November 24, contributing significantly to the government's defeat after 11 years in power. The reforms, enacted in 2005, faced sustained public backlash over perceived reductions in worker protections, such as limits on claims and shifts toward individual contracts, which Labor leader framed as an assault on the "fair go." (ALP) campaigned on a platform promising to dismantle key elements of WorkChoices, including the abolition of Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) and restoration of rights, positioning the as a on . Public opinion polls throughout 2007 reflected widespread opposition, with a Nielsen poll indicating 59% of Australians against the laws one year after implementation, driven by concerns over and cuts. This sentiment was amplified by the union-backed "Your Rights at Work" campaign, which mobilized protests and advertising emphasizing risks to penalty rates and family time, swaying blue-collar and outer-suburban voters traditionally supportive of the . The Australian Election Study post-election analysis revealed that concerns influenced voter shifts, particularly among manual workers, with many citing WorkChoices as a decisive factor in switching to Labor. The defended WorkChoices as essential for economic flexibility and productivity growth, pointing to low unemployment rates around 4.4% in , but struggled against negative perceptions fueled by leaked cabinet documents and high-profile sackings under the new rules. Post-election reviews within the attributed much of the 5.4% two-party preferred swing to Labor—resulting in Labor securing 52.7% of the vote and gaining 23 seats—to the IR backlash, with himself acknowledging missteps in communication. Rudd's victory speech highlighted the mandate to reverse the reforms, underscoring WorkChoices' role in galvanizing opposition and enabling Labor's return to government.

Transition to Fair Work Act in 2009

The Rudd Labor government, elected in November 2007 on a platform including the overhaul of WorkChoices, began the legislative transition in early 2008. On 13 February 2008, it introduced the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008 into Parliament, which received royal assent on 20 March 2008. This transitional legislation immediately abolished the creation of new Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs), the cornerstone individual contract mechanism under WorkChoices, and mandated their phase-out by ceasing renewals after 31 March 2008, with existing AWAs permitted to continue until their nominal expiry or 2013 at the latest. It also reinstated protections against unfair dismissal for employees with at least six months' service in businesses with 15 or more employees, reversing WorkChoices' expansions of exemption thresholds. Building on this foundation, the government introduced the Fair Work Bill 2008 on 27 November 2008, which underwent Senate committee scrutiny amid debates over balancing worker protections with business flexibility. The bill passed the House of Representatives in 2008 and the Senate on 25 June 2009, receiving royal assent as the Fair Work Act 2009 on 18 June 2009. The Act fully repealed the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (including WorkChoices amendments) and established a new framework centered on collective enterprise bargaining, National Employment Standards (covering minimum leave, hours, and pay entitlements), and modern awards to replace previous award simplifications. It created Fair Work Australia (renamed the Fair Work Commission in 2012) as the central tribunal for dispute resolution, wage setting, and agreement approval, emphasizing good faith bargaining while prohibiting pattern bargaining in certain forms. Most provisions of the Fair Work Act commenced on 1 July , marking the operational end of the WorkChoices era, though transitional arrangements under the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act managed the grandfathering of pre-existing instruments like AWAs and collective agreements to avoid abrupt disruptions. This included converting AWAs into Individual Transitional Employment Contracts with a no-disadvantage test against modern awards, ensuring continuity for approximately 500,000 workers on such agreements as of mid-. The reforms drew criticism from business groups for potentially increasing union influence and rigidity, while unions and Labor advocates defended it as restoring fairness eroded by WorkChoices' emphasis on individual contracts. By December , the full transition was complete, with state referrals expanding federal coverage to most private sector employees.

Long-Term Legacy

Persistent Debates on Industrial Relations Reform

Following the repeal of WorkChoices through the , Australian debates have persistently revolved around the trade-offs between labor market flexibility and worker safeguards, with advocates for arguing it enhances and while critics emphasize risks of inequity. Empirical analyses indicate that the WorkChoices period (2006-2009) coincided with accelerated full-time growth relative to part-time roles, potentially aiding overall job creation amid a resources boom, though isolating causal effects from broader economic conditions remains challenging. Wage outcomes showed no uniform suppression, but low-wage sectors experienced heightened vulnerability to individualized agreements that prioritized employer discretion over collective standards. The Commission's 2015 Workplace Relations Framework inquiry underscored enduring tensions, recommending streamlined enterprise contracting to bridge individual agreements and awards, aiming to curb productivity drags from rigid while preserving minimum conditions. Business representatives, such as the Minerals Council, have since critiqued the Fair Work system's centralization for fostering multi-employer that inflates costs and disputes, contrasting it with WorkChoices' emphasis on direct employer-employee pacts for operational agility. Labor perspectives, including from academic reviews, counter that such flexibility historically eroded job quality and distributional equity, linking post-1980s reforms—including WorkChoices—to rising casualization and insecure work. These positions reflect source divergences, with employer-funded studies often highlighting efficiency gains and union-aligned research stressing exploitation risks, necessitating scrutiny of methodological assumptions in both. From 2022 onward, the government's "Closing Loopholes" amendments—introducing multi-employer bargaining, fixed-term contract limits, and casual definitions—have amplified these divides, with employer groups like Ai Group decrying diminished flexibility amid stagnant productivity growth (averaging under 1% annually pre-2025). Proponents, including unions, assert these measures rectify WorkChoices' legacy of unbalanced power dynamics, enabling better wage alignment with inflation (e.g., 3.7% annual growth post-2022 via decisions). Yet, as federal elections approached in 2025, remained sidelined relative to fiscal priorities, signaling no resolution to core questions on whether devolved systems demonstrably outperform regulated ones in fostering sustainable and output gains.

Comparisons with Subsequent Systems

The Fair Work Act 2009 fundamentally reoriented Australia's industrial relations framework away from the individualized, employer-centric model of WorkChoices toward a system prioritizing collective enterprise bargaining, statutory minimums, and institutional oversight via the Fair Work Commission. WorkChoices had emphasized Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) as the primary vehicle for terms, supplemented by a minimal Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard encompassing five basic entitlements, while curtailing award conditions, pattern bargaining, and union influence. In contrast, the Fair Work Act established National Employment Standards (NES) with ten entitlements across 72 provisions, consolidated approximately 3,700 legacy awards into 122 modern awards, and mandated good faith bargaining for enterprise agreements, prohibiting individual statutory contracts like AWAs. Unfair dismissal protections, exempt under WorkChoices for businesses with 100 or fewer employees (affecting 52% of the workforce), were progressively extended under Fair Work to cover nearly 79% of employees by March 2012. Empirical outcomes diverged in measurable ways, though causal attribution remains contested due to confounding factors like the global financial crisis (2008–2009). Under WorkChoices from 2006 to 2009, employment expanded robustly amid low (falling to around 4% by late ), with record jobs growth attributed in part to enhanced employer flexibility in hiring and dismissals. Wage growth was strong, with the Wage Price Index rising approximately 3–4% annually during the broader period (1996–2007), though AWAs frequently traded away penalty rates or overtime loadings, yielding median earnings 16.3% below collective agreements in 2006 and underpayment in up to 45–50% of cases pre- fairness test. growth, however, showed no significant acceleration; survey evidence from human professionals indicated minimal changes, with multifactor declining in some sectors despite aims for to spur efficiency. Industrial disputes remained low, but union membership continued to erode. The Fair Work regime, effective from July 2009, correlated with stabilized but slower employment expansion post-GFC recovery, reaching a 5% rise in from –2011 alongside labor force participation at 65.2% by April . advanced 1.8% annually from 1994–95 to 2010–11, with union enterprise agreements delivering 0.2–0.6% higher annualized wage increases than non-union ones (2009–2011), and adjustments outpacing average growth in some low-paid sectors like social and community services (19–41% phased increases –2020). coverage surged 35% to 21% of the by , yet growth averaged 1.1% annually in the preceding years (2003–08) with no clear uplift under Fair Work, as labor trended at 1.7% over decades amid stagnant multifactor gains. Flexibility shifted toward Flexibility Arrangements (used by 3.5% of employees in ) and annualised wage models (10.3% of agreements), but critics noted reduced employer prerogative compared to AWAs, with greenfields agreements showing comparable annualized increases (4.7% under Fair Work vs. 4.0–4.1% under WorkChoices).
MetricWorkChoices (2006–2009)Fair Work Act (2009–2012)
Employment GrowthRecord highs; ~4% by 20075% rise 2008–2011; participation 65.2% (2012)
Wage Growth (Annual)WPI ~3–4%; AWAs often 16.3% below collectives +1.8%; union premium 0.2–0.6%
ProductivityNo significant change; multifactor decline1.1% labor growth (prior trend); no uplift
Agreement CoverageAWAs 3–7%; non-union peak 54.3%Collective +35% to 21%; 2.4M employees (2011)
Subsequent amendments to Fair Work, such as the 2023–2024 Closing Loopholes reforms, have incrementally enhanced worker entitlements (e.g., stricter casual conversion rules) while preserving core collective mechanisms, but empirical reviews indicate persistent challenges in linking system design to surges, with aggregate outcomes more influenced by macroeconomic cycles than legislative form.

References

  1. https://natlex.ilo.org/dyn/natlex2/natlex2/files/download/72561/AUS72561.pdf
  2. https://www.otemon.ac.jp/library/research/labo/cas/publication/pdf/32/7.pdf
  3. https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/workplace-relations-amendment-workchoices-bill-2005
  4. https://www.hcourt.gov.au/sites/default/files/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2006/hca52-2006-11-14.pdf
  5. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Pages/the-workplace-relations-case-implications-for-th.aspx
  6. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/aus/australia/unemployment-rate
  7. https://centreforpublicimpact.org/public-impact-fundamentals/work-choices-legislation-in-australia/
  8. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43199371
  9. https://www.fairwork.gov.au/about-us/workplace-laws/fair-work-system/australias-industrial-relations-timeline
  10. https://www.elibrary.imf.org/view/journals/002/1996/037/article-A001-en.xml
  11. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_Employment_and_Workplace_Relations/Completed_inquiries/1999-02/wrkplace/report/c03
  12. https://www.actu.org.au/media-release/workplace-relations-act-and-the-effectiveness-of-trade-unions/
  13. https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/rdp/1992/pdf/rdp9215.pdf
  14. https://www.economist.com/asia/2005/06/09/trimming-awards
  15. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Industrial_Disputes_Briefing_Note_FINAL.pdf
  16. https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/confs/2000/dawkins.html
  17. https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLJ/2006/7.pdf
  18. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0022185608101703
  19. https://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/0/06781BA63CB03EDFCA2578C3001473E0?opendocument
  20. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/inquiries/2047/Final%2520Report%252023%2520November%25202006.pdf
  21. https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/eet_ctte/completed_inquiries/2004_07/wr_workchoices05/report/report_pdf.ashx
  22. https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/901606/4880-agreement-making-web.pdf
  23. https://www.rippling.com/glossary/workplace-relations-act
  24. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-economic-and-labour-relations-review/article/australian-workplace-agreements-under-work-choices/BAEE78F2F1FEAEA53156513270F1C6C5
  25. http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/bill/wracb2005428/
  26. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_Employment_and_Workplace_Relations/Completed_inquiries/2004-07/indust_agreements/report/c02
  27. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43501039_Women_and_Workchoices_Impacts_on_the_low_pay_sector
  28. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_Employment_and_Workplace_Relations/Completed_inquiries/2004-07/indust_agreements/report/c01
  29. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271940591_AWAs_Changing_the_structure_of_wages
  30. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Education_Employment_and_Workplace_Relations/Completed_inquiries/2004-07/indust_agreements/report/c03
  31. http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/bill_em/wracb2005428/memo_0.html
  32. https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/eet_ctte/completed_inquiries/2004_07/wr_workchoices05/submissions/sub175_pdf.ashx
  33. https://d3nr8uzk0yq0qe.cloudfront.net/media/upload/research/Freyens_Oslington_-_Unfair_Dismissal_Natural_Experiment.pdf
  34. https://monthlyreview.org/articles/labor-market-reform-in-australia-the-new-industrial-relations-law-and-the-elections/
  35. https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wraca2005418.rtf
  36. https://www.ppesydney.net/content/uploads/2020/05/Workchoices-removing-the-choice-to-strike-Paper-in-Whose-Choices-Analysis-of-the-Current-Industrial-Relations-Reforms..pdf
  37. https://www.ppesydney.net/content/uploads/2020/05/Workchoices-myth-making-at-work-Paper-in-Whose-Choices-Analysis-of-the-Current-Industrial-Relations-Reforms..pdf
  38. https://www.otemon.ac.jp/library/research/labo/cas/publication/pdf/35/14.pdf
  39. https://australianpolitics.com/2005/11/02/kevin-andrews-workchoices-2nd-reading-speech.html/
  40. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2465
  41. https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/eet_ctte/completed_inquiries/2004_07/wr_workchoices05/report/b01_pdf.ashx
  42. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/wraca2005418/s2.html
  43. https://jade.io/summary/mnc/2005/AULegAct/153
  44. https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/Estimates/Live/eet_ctte/estimates/bud_0607/dewr/w098-07att3.ashx
  45. https://www.otemon.ac.jp/library/research/labo/cas/publication/pdf/33/14.pdf
  46. https://services.thomson.com.au/cpdnews/docs/Workforce/WF1574whatisthestory.pdf
  47. https://www.codea.com.au/publication/the-fair-work-ombudsman-an-industrial-watchdog-with-teeth/
  48. https://www.anao.gov.au/work/performance-audit/delivery-workplace-relations-services-the-office-the-fair-work-ombudsman
  49. https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/journals/ELRRev/2006/3.html
  50. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1111/j.1472-9296.2005.00182.x
  51. https://www.bartier.com.au/insights/articles/work-choices-changes-to-state-and-federal-awards-and-agreements
  52. https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/ecolab/v16y2006i2p165-191.html
  53. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1847007
  54. https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/900532/airaanz-conference-08.pdf
  55. https://alexwhite.org/2009/09/was-work-choices-a-roadblock-to-productivity/
  56. https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/eet_ctte/completed_inquiries/2004_07/wr_workchoices05/submissions/sub045_pdf.ashx
  57. https://www.bca.com.au/submission_to_the_senate_inquiry_into_the_workplace_relations_amendment_workchoices_bill_2005
  58. https://www.[jstor](/page/JSTOR).org/stable/43199371
  59. https://www.parliament.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/382572/WF_03_ACT_CCI.pdf
  60. https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/mcs/article/view/1246/1310
  61. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00236561003654735
  62. https://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/693/analysis/hundreds-thousands-mobilise-against-work-choices
  63. https://changemakerspodcast.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Your-Rights-at-Work-campaign-Australia-s-most-sophisticated-political-campaign.pdf
  64. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2010.00788.x
  65. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-11-15/thousands-protest-against-ir-laws/740376
  66. https://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Hundreds_of_thousands_rally_in_Australia_against_IR_legislation
  67. https://ro.ecu.edu.au/ecuworks/1700/
  68. https://www.actu.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/media136020actufactsheet100427-workchoices-final.pdf
  69. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022185608089994
  70. https://www.ianwatson.com.au/pubs/goot_watson_workchoices.pdf
  71. https://www.rba.gov.au/publications/confs/2011/pdf/borland.pdf
  72. https://www.ahri.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2007-workchoices-impact-researchrep_sml.pdf
  73. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10301763.2009.10669400
  74. https://ideas.repec.org/a/acb/agenda/v13y2006i2p99-116.html
  75. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022185608090001
  76. https://www.anzam.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf-manager/1905_KNOXANGELA_024.PDF
  77. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0927537122001464
  78. https://www.bpclaw.com.au/the-fairness-test-for-workplace-agreements/
  79. https://researchers.mq.edu.au/en/publications/australian-workplace-agreements-and-high-performance-workplaces-a/
  80. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/29466209_Compounding_Vulnerability_Young_Workers%27_Employment_Concerns_and_the_Anticipated_Impact_of_the_WorkChoices_Act
  81. https://www.security4women.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/InfoPaper_QldOfW_WorkchoicesWomen.pdf
  82. https://www.billmitchell.org/publications/journals/J53_2006.pdf
  83. https://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/eet_ctte/completed_inquiries/2004_07/wr_workchoices05/submissions/sub131_pdf.ashx
  84. https://www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Work-of-the-Assembly/Tabled-Papers/docs/5207T950/5207t950.pdf
  85. https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/b62b9000-0ad6-5a0a-9f05-d9cf9f45cc62/content
  86. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-06/kohler-workchoices-is-dead%2C-buried-and-...-abated/6674518
  87. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-11-25/workchoices-blamed-for-election-loss/967664
  88. https://electionspeeches.moadoph.gov.au/speeches/2007-kevin-rudd
  89. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-03-26/more-than-half-of-australians-oppose-work-choices/2226750
  90. https://tapri.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/v16n2_7betts.pdf
  91. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-11-22/public-anger-over-workchoices-evident-rudd/732654
  92. https://www.naa.gov.au/explore-collection/australias-prime-ministers/kevin-rudd/during-office
  93. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r2906
  94. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1847045
  95. https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=d3c14b3a-607d-4a99-a2fc-272582879104
  96. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_Search_Results/Result?bId=r4016
  97. http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/fwa2009114/s2.html
  98. https://natlex.ilo.org/dyn/natlex2/natlex2/files/download/82507/AUS82507%25202019.pdf
  99. https://oia.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/posts/2012/08/03-Final-Fair-Work-PIR-for-publication-20120802.pdf
  100. https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=06fb535f-bf0b-4319-86a3-d845cba5732a
  101. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271387483_Assessing_the_Impact_of_%27WorkChoices%27_One_Year_On
  102. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/the-economic-and-labour-relations-review/article/turning-point-for-labour-market-policy-in-australia/F978F09996E125008475B71065274454
  103. https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries-and-research/workplace-relations/report/
  104. https://minerals.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Workplace_relations_The_case_for_reform_August_2017.pdf
  105. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1035304619835075
  106. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=38cdfb10-4185-45e6-b105-40dc9c978060
  107. https://www.aigroup.com.au/news/reports/2025/significant-workplace-relations-issues-june-2025/
  108. https://www.kwm.com/au/en/insights/latest-thinking/reform-reflections-dnderstanding-the-shift-in-australias-industrial-landscape.html
  109. https://www.actu.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Wages-Growth-at-Risk-ACTU-April-2025.pdf
  110. https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/analysis/what-the-2025-australian-federal-election-may-mean-for-employers
  111. https://theconversation.com/workplace-inquiry-attempts-to-move-beyond-workchoices-36605
  112. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-04-12/workchoices-has-boosted-jobs-growth-pm-says/2240402
  113. https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/resources/2025fwcfb3500.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.