Which Way Forward for Dispute Resolution?

By Anthony Forsyth

Whichever party wins government, procedures for dealing with disputes need to change.

Labor's pledge to abolish the Australian Industrial Relations Commission (AIRC) along with several other federal agencies and replace them with a new body, Fair Work Australia, has generated significant debate and media attention.

Much of this discussion has focused upon three aspects. First, the "surprise element" of Labor's move, which involved turning its back on the AIRC after supporting the institution in the face of more than a decade of government attacks. Secondly, the rationale for this policy shift, most likely emanating from a desire to start again with new appointees given the perception that the government has "stacked" the tribunal with employer representatives. And thirdly, the constitutional validity of the proposal, with concern in some quarters about the combining of enforcement/prosecution functions and judicial/determination functions within the same body.

But there has been very little discussion of the implications of Labor's announcement for workplace dispute resolution. Before addressing that issue, what has been the experience with dispute resolution in the first year or so of Work Choices?

On the first anniversary of Work Choices at the end of March, the AIRC president, Justice Giudice, released figures showing that these changes have led to a dramatic reduction in the commission's workload. Total dispute resolution matters notified to the AIRC fell from 2420 in the year March 2005-March 2006 to 1344 in the year to March 2007. The commission's overall workload (measured by total lodgement numbers) was cut by two thirds in the same period, from 29,246 to 10,138. These figures paint a starkly illuminating picture of the extent to which the AIRC - the once impregnable institution at the apex of Australia's industrial relations system - has been marginalised by Work Choices.

Whatever the outcome of this year's election, there must be some form of public dispute resolution body in place to ensure that employers, employees and unions are able to access efficient, practical and cost-effective dispute resolution services.

This is an edited version of a seminar delivered to the Australian Labour Law Association in Adelaide on 19 June 2007.

(Australian Policy Online)