A NEW DEAL FOR AUSTRALIA’S WORKPLACE RELATIONS – AMANDA RISHWORTH

The Hon Amanda Rishworth MP is Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and argues that the case for valuing employees is not just fair – it is a strategic advantage that increases performance and strengthens workplaces. Minister Rishworth maintains that the employer/employee pendulum is now outdated. And that the Albanese Government’s workplace relations reforms are enabling greater co-operation between workers and employees which leads to benefits for both. Amanda Rishworth addressed The Sydney Institute on Tuesday 17 February 2026

A NEW DEAL FOR AUSTRALIA’S WORKPLACE RELATIONS

AMANDA RISHWORTH

Good evening. I acknowledge the Gadigal people as the traditional custodians of the land we are meeting on. I pay my respects to their elders, past and present. Thank you to Anne and Gerard for the invitation to speak at the Sydney Institute.

Gerard, your IR Club essay encouraged us to question our workplace relations systems. And we should absolutely always be questioning: have we got it right? Because, fundamentally, workplace relations is about fairness and the kind of society we want to live in.

Tonight I want to talk about how we can move past the notion of workplace relations as just a zero-sum game where only workers or employers can succeed. I want to talk about some of the outcomes we are seeing as a result of the Albanese Labor Government’s workplace relations reforms. And I want to highlight how these outcomes are actually facilitating cooperative workplace arrangements, which can deliver mutual benefits.

But before we get to the work place – I’d like to talk a little about work itself.

Work delivers obvious economic benefits. A decent pay cheque pays the bills. It lets people plan for their future. It means you can work to live – not live to work.  But work can – and should – also fulfill some of our deepest psychological needs.  Accomplishment, community, connection.

Work is intrinsically tied to us as human beings. So, as a workplace input, a worker is not separable from their labour.  Labour is more than just another cost of production or a cog in a machine.

In 1911, Frederick Taylor famously argued that:  “In the past, the man has been first. In the future, the system must be first.”  But we know better now.

We understand that the engagement of workers is key to boosting discretionary effort. Things like problem-solving, adaptability and collaboration. And engagement is shaped by incentives.  Incentives like job security, agency and remuneration.  Companies that recognise this fact can derive a real profit advantage. Because a company’s workforce is its competitive edge.

Now you might think I would say that, as a Labor Member of Parliament. But the research backs it up. A recent meta-analysis conducted by Gallup, covering over 3.3 million employees globally, found that businesses with highly engaged workers had 23 per cent higher profits than those with low engagement. So, the way a company engages its workers has a direct effect on business success.

But I also believe that treating workers fairly is fundamental to a strong, competitive economy. And that is why Government has a role in regulating the workplace. Of course, our interest in the workplace goes beyond just economic impacts.

Government also has a role in shaping our society. People’s working conditions have a real impact on their social circumstances. How secure they feel. How fairly they are treated. How confident they can be about the future. And that was front of mind for our Government when we delivered our significant reform agenda in the last Parliament.

During that process, there was some criticism we had gone too far, in favour of workers and unions. But that criticism overlooks the fact these reforms are delivering benefits for business, too.

Rejecting the “pendulum”

This is why the common cliché of the workplace relations pendulum is too simplistic. Many of you will have heard it before. The pendulum metaphor relies on the idea that if workers win, then employers lose – and vice versa. It gets a run in The Australian or the AFR at least once a month. Former Qantas chief Alan Joyce publicly rehashed this idea just in November last year: “The pendulum of industrial relations can go too far one way – or too far another way.” Mr Joyce also said: “The pendulum, for some time, has been in the wrong spot.”

But the pendulum metaphor is limiting. It pushes people into their respective corners. And this mindset can have real consequences. As we saw at Qantas under Mr Joyce, who oversaw an approach to workplace relations that the Federal Court described as “combative”. An internal review, reported in the AFR, said that this adversarial approach did “considerable harm” to the airline’s relationship with its staff and stakeholders, along with its reputation. That’s why the pendulum idea is damaging: it precludes the ability to see workers and their unions as partners, rather than adversaries.

Now, my glasses are not rose-tinted. I’m not going to pretend that the interests of employers and workers are always aligned. Nor am I suggesting that government can eliminate disagreement through legislation. But rejecting the pendulum does not mean denying differences. It means recognising that there are also often opportunities for cooperation.

Cooperative workplaces are productive workplaces. Productivity is not something done to workers. It is something achieved with workers. Cooperation builds trust – and research shows that trust substantially boosts an organisation’s performance and employee engagement. Which, as I have already highlighted, delivers higher profits for business. But trust can’t rely on goodwill alone. It needs mechanisms that facilitate real cooperation. And unions are a legitimate part of that.

Our Government’s workplace relations reforms did clearly demarcate a role for unions in the workplace. For example, we better defined the role of a union delegate and put specific rights for them into law. Because a common understanding of the ground rules makes it easier to work together – and build trust. And when a relationship is based on trust – between unions and employers – neither side needs to see each other as a threat.

I know that not everyone in this room will agree with me on this point. But international evidence shows this type of cooperation can actually reduce conflict. In Denmark for example, the relationship between employers and workers is far less conflict-based than in Australia.In 2024, Denmark lost just 1.5 working days per 1,000 employees to industrial disputes.   That’s compared to 10.5 days for Australia.  This is in a country with almost 70 per cent union density.

One study showed that 77 per cent of Danish employers thought that union delegates were important for developing their organisation.  And 89 per cent believed their relationship with union delegates was based on a high degree of trust. So, cooperation cuts down conflict. And it can even lead to practical innovation – like in the Danish model, where employers and unions jointly manage the skills and training system.

So, when we stop thinking in terms of a pendulum, we can see real opportunities for everyone to benefit.

Better pay

When the Albanese Government introduced our first term reforms, people quickly reverted to the familiar pendulum metaphor. People said our laws were too pro-worker, at the expense of business. Now, I will not apologise for recognising workers benefit from higher wages and better job security. But our reforms provide opportunities for business to benefit, too.

When we came to office, enterprise bargaining had declined to historic lows.   The rules were so broken that the normal 12-week time frame for approving agreements had dragged out to 12 months. As a result, employers defaulted to awards – meaning they couldn’t negotiate bespoke conditions for their enterprise. Workers, meanwhile, missed out on meaningful real wage growth for the better part of a decade.

Each one percentage point loss of bargaining coverage has been associated with a reduction in annual wage growth of 0.15 percentage points.  Getting wages moving again was a clear priority for our Government. Because wages are a critical element of that economic freedom I spoke about earlier.

One of the ways we wanted to deliver these wage increases was by reinvigorating enterprise bargaining. Because enterprise bargaining delivers more than just higher wages for workers. It delivers for employers too.

Companies can have agency in the process of negotiating reasonable wage increases.  And they can tie wage growth to greater productivity enhancements. Research from the RBA shows the relationship between wages and company productivity is much weaker when firms rely on industry awards.

I’d like to stress this point: our bargaining reforms do not mandate wage increases.  They enable negotiation.  And where productivity improvements are available, enterprise bargaining allows those gains to be shared.

So, I’m proud that our reforms were focused on promoting bargaining. Reforms like: simplifying the Better Off Overall Test. Streamlining the agreement approval process. And making it easier to restart or initiate the bargaining process. Those changes are facilitating beneficial outcomes for workers and their employers.

Let me give you an example. In 2020, Bunnings had to abandon the process of negotiating a new agreement because it had simply taken too long.  After our reforms, they were able to restart bargaining for their expired agreement, and get it approved in a timely manner.  Bunnings and the SDA have now negotiated a landmark agreement that benefits workers through decent wage rises and flexible work provisions.

It also benefits Bunnings by positioning them as a preferred employer in a tight labour market.  Their chief people officer, Damian Zahra, said that: “We want to attract and retain a high-performing team by providing industry-leading benefits and a great culture – and the new agreement plays an important role in doing that.”

The numbers show that they are not alone. We are seeing an uptick in enterprise bargaining across the country.  Since we came to office, the number of employees covered by a collective agreement has increased by more than 50 per cent. Our reforms also provided more options for employers, workers and their unions to make multi-employer agreements.

I know that there was some criticism of these changes. But can I be very clear: we didn’t create a new system. Our reforms simply updated the existing multi-employer pathways to make them more workable. Supported bargaining for low-paid workers, for example, is not a new invention – but the barrier to entry was just too high. As in the childcare sector, where many small businesses simply didn’t have the resources to bargain.

We changed the rules to make it easier for these businesses, their workers and unions to come together. Coming together allows resources to be shared – and mutual gains to be realised.

Workers are now seeing better pay and conditions. And employers are seeing direct benefits through better staff retention, allowing them to offer high-quality services.

I know some employers were resistant to the single-interest stream of multi-employer bargaining. But our Government saw it as an important mechanism to avoid a race to the bottom on wages and conditions. Of course, if an employer has an existing enterprise agreement, they will not be captured by a multi-employer one. And despite some of the hyperbole we saw at the time, pattern bargaining remains unlawful under the Fair Work Act.

Our Government also made it easier to access the cooperative stream for voluntary multi-employer bargaining, creating a genuine opportunity for businesses and workers to achieve mutual gains. I’d urge any business owner – especially smaller operators without the resources to bargain alone – to consider this pathway and the shared benefits enterprise bargaining can deliver.

The reason I am so passionate about bargaining is not just the outcomes. It’s because the process itself delivers benefits. It fosters consultation, communication, cooperation.  It gets parties together around the table, understanding each other’s perspectives – including points of difference. Which, as I have already outlined, is important for building trust.

Secure jobs 

Having job security is critical to a worker’s economic and emotional wellbeing. That’s why our Government passed reforms to promote job security, like Same Job Same Pay and a simpler pathway to permanency for casuals who want it. There was some criticism from business about these reforms as well. But I strongly believe these reforms will also deliver mutual gains in the long run.

Our Government  knows  flexibility is important for productivity and to meet industry needs.  But workers are not robots. Having security in a job ensures that people are engaged. It ensures they will invest effort into their work. And this is backed up by research. A recent meta-analysis from the Chartered Institute of Personnel Development found that job security has the single strongest positive correlation to employee commitment.

Engaged employees, as I’ve said, deliver better profits. But secure jobs are also important for broader economic growth.  They allow workers to invest in themselves, their families, their future. That is why our Government is unashamedly supportive of encouraging permanent, direct employment.

Labour hire can, of course, be an efficient tool where it meets genuine short-term or specialist needs.  But when it undercuts wages for identical work, it distorts competition and erodes trust.  Because the relative deprivation of doing the same job as your colleague, but getting paid less, is incredibly demoralising.

Last year, I met Alanna, a flight attendant who is one of the thousands of workers who have benefited from our Same Job, Same Pay reforms.   She is finally getting paid the same as her colleagues, after more than a decade of working under different pay scales.  Alanna said: “We have seen significant morale improvements amongst the crew working together in the same cabin.”  Alanna’s story shows that where our laws deliver benefits to workers through better job security, employers also benefit through a more engaged and committed workforce.

 Right to disconnect

Another reform that was perceived to just be on the side of workers, but is actually also good for business, is the Right to Disconnect. When we passed this law, there was a lot of commentary that only viewed this reform through the lens of the pendulum metaphor. Critics said it was overly prescriptive and would exclusively benefit workers. And yes, our law does give workers the legal certainty to refuse unreasonable contact outside of business hours. They can properly clock off, spend time with their families and reset their work-life balance.

Last year, the Australian HR Institute surveyed over 600 senior business decision-makers about the Right to Disconnect. And the results may be surprising to our critics. More than half of those business figures said the right to disconnect had improved employee engagement and productivity at their organisation.

Now of course, a survey is not quite a randomised control trial.  But it does indicate that both workers and employers actually needed the clarity that our laws provided. It has helped create a common understanding in workplaces about the important issue of work/life balance – which reduces the likelihood of conflict. And despite the dire predictions of some, we have not seen big disagreements in the Fair Work Commission about this measure.

This shows that the pendulum metaphor narrows our view – and stops us from appreciating the mutual benefits that can be achieved through reform.

Tripartism 

As I have outlined, real mutual gains can be realised by employers and workers and their unions working together and having constructive dialogue.  But there is an important role for government as well.

As Minister, I am committed to embedding a tripartite approach wherever possible.  Because I truly believe in the ability of tripartism to deliver better decision-making through shared understanding and trust.

Safe Work Australia is a clear example of this. Its tripartite structure is widely recognised as a strength, including by business groups and unions.  They can have confidence that they are making a real contribution to the development of model laws for safe, healthy workplaces.

The National Construction Industry Forum is another example.  For the first time, we have stakeholders engaging in a collaborative way to address systemic problems in the sector.

Some critics have said that tripartism slows decision-making or gives undue influence to vested interests.  But reforms imposed without stakeholder buy-in tend to be short-lived.Whatever your feelings about unions or businesses, cutting them out of the picture simply does not work.

In my view, exclusion breeds antagonism.  Tripartism does not require decisions to be unanimous.  Let me assure you – when I attend these forums, we are not sitting around the table, singing Kumbayah.  We are having – at times – pretty frank conversations.

This process does increase stakeholder confidence in decisions by ensuring their concerns are ventilated.  That is why I will continue to foster tripartism in our institutions. Not just as window dressing – but for meaningful decision-making.

At the Fair Work Commission, I am committed to making balanced appointments to ensure employer and employee perspectives are recognised, along with legal expertise. And our Jobs and Skills Councils are embedding a tripartite approach in the skills sector to shape Australia’s future workforce.

As I said earlier, I know there will often be contestability.  But understanding each other’s perspectives allows us to understand what we are actually disagreeing about. The many business leaders and unions I have engaged with in this portfolio have demonstrated a willingness to lean in through these forums. They recognise it is better for everyone when we can work together.

AI as example of post-pendulum 

Artificial intelligence will be the next test case of our capacity to work together. We all know AI will change the types of jobs people do. But it won’t just affect what people do. It will also reshape how they’re managed and treated at work.

AI can’t make those human judgements about fairness or dignity in the workplace on its own. That’s why trust and transparency matter so much. And it’s why involving workers and unions in decisions about how AI is introduced is absolutely critical.

We can’t afford to treat AI in the workplace as another zero-sum game where if employers win, then workers lose. Research from Jobs and Skills Australia shows that businesses get the best return on AI when they involve their workers. And in this new age of AI, workers can’t be treated as disposable.

Employers need to invest in their people’s skills and show that there is a secure, valued place for them in the future. Because workers need confidence that they are not just training their own replacement, but are contributing to the business’s ongoing success. And it’s the workers – with their knowledge and understanding of the business – who are essential to making sure the technology can deliver real value. A core pillar of our Government’s National AI Plan is making sure that we are seizing the opportunity and sharing the benefits.

My job as Minister is to examine our current workplace frameworks and legislation, to make sure they are fit for purpose for the expansion of AI in the workplace. And if there are gaps, then I will progress appropriate reforms to ensure we continue to have fair, safe and cooperative workplaces. Employers, workers and government all have to work together to ensure we avoid the obvious pitfalls.

One of the ways I’m doing this is through the tripartite AI Working Group – bringing parties together around the same table to work through the risks and develop shared solutions. And we’re already seeing businesses and unions embrace this cooperative approach.

Last month, Microsoft and the ACTU signed an MoU to establish a framework around AI in the workplace.  In their statement, Microsoft specifically emphasised the importance of workers’ voices in the successful implementation of technology. It’s just another example of what is possible when parties focus on what can be achieved together through trust and cooperation.

Broader social benefits 

If we don’t have trust at the workplace level – there can be broader social implications.  When people see systems as unfair, they withdraw trust.  Not just from employers, but from institutions more broadly.

Findings from Australian Barometer public surveys show that when people perceive income inequality to be high, then they are less satisfied with democracy. And a study across 18 European countries found that job insecurity generates lower levels of trust in political institutions. So, ensuring sustainable wage growth is important – but not enough on its own.

Australia has a proud history of minimum workplace standards to ensure we do not let people fall through the cracks and maintain their trust in the system. That tradition underpinned our reforms for gig workers.  A failure of adequate regulation meant gig workers were locked out of a basic level of remuneration and protections that other working Australians enjoy.

When we listened to business, workers and unions – it was clear that the answer was not to force them into a traditional model of direct employment. But we did need to ensure these workers had minimum remuneration and protections. Because a society in which people work hard, but can’t achieve a basic level of economic security, is not just bad for that individual’s living standards. It will lead to an erosion of faith in our democratic institutions.

A strong safety net rewards people’s faith in the system. And, ultimately, faith in democracy.

In conclusion, I believe that we have an opportunity to think more broadly about how our workplace relations system can deliver benefits for employers and workers.  We cannot let the narrow pendulum metaphor dictate our approach to workplace relations.There will always be different priorities between the interests of capital and labour. But there are real, significant opportunities to find mutual gains.

As Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, I never forget the privilege and responsibility I have.  The institutions and policies I steward play a major role in shaping how people experience the world of work – and their broader social circumstances.

That’s why cooperation, trust and shared prosperity will remain my priorities. That will deliver economic gains and higher living standards for all Australians.  That will create a world of work where Australians can succeed together, not at each other’s expense.