Labour Market Efficiency and Fairness: Agreements and the Independent Resolution of Difference‪.‬

It is now settled that we need to get beyond WorkChoices by Moving Forward with Fairness. But what does this mean? In particular, what does it mean if we are interested in improving efficiency, effectiveness and equity in the Australian labour market? As an election manifesto, the ALP's policy on labour law was, understandably, strong on rhetoric and light on detail. A paper this length cannot overcome the 'details' problem. Instead, it clarifies the key issue of institutional design that should guide the impending legislative changes. This is: The argument is straight forward. Any effective system of labour law must engage with the two asymmetries at the heart of the employment relationship: inequality of bargaining power before a worker is hired and uncertainty of performance once they are engaged. The former favours the employer, the latter the worker. These inequalities change over time. Differences arising from these asymmetries underpin the need for ongoing agreement making. Not infrequently, however, agreement cannot be reached. While each of the plenary papers differed, all four agreed that, over the last century, Australia has devised a dynamic system for independently resolving such 'deadlock' situations. These tribunals have succeeded because they have kept most industrial or workplace relations issues out of parliament and the courts.