CHAFFER, Ms Nicky, Executive Director, Advice and Education Branch, Fair Work Ombudsman [by video link] DE SILVA WIJEYERATNE, Mr Anshu, First Assistant Secretary, Equity, Entitlements and International Branch, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations FOGARTY, Mr Anthony, Executive Director, Policy Branch, Fair Work Ombudsman [by video link] HALLAS, Ms Emma, Assistant Secretary and Senior Executive Lawyer, Employment Standards and Institutions Branch, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations MADDOCK, Ms Alanna, Assistant Secretary, Safety Net Branch, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations VOLZKE, Ms Rachel, Chief Counsel and Group Manager, Legal and Policy Group, Fair Work Ombudsman [by video link] WILLIAMS, Ms Joanna, Principal Lawyer, Legal Advice Team, Fair Work Ombudsman [by video link] Committee met at 17 : 41 CHAIR ( Dr Garland ): I declare open this public hearing of the Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations, Skills and Training for its inquiry into the operation and adequacy of the National Employment Standards. I acknowledge that the various parts of the country where we meet today have been meeting places for First Nations peoples for thousands of years. I acknowledge the traditional owners of the lands that everyone is meeting from today, I pay my respects to elders past, present and emerging and I acknowledge any First Nations people who might be present with us today. In accordance with the committee's resolution, this hearing will be broadcast on the parliament's website and the proof and official transcript of proceedings will also be published on the parliament's website. I remind all present that as chair I will ensure that proceedings are conducted in an orderly, respectful and courteous way. Those present here today are advised that filming and recording are permitted during the hearing. I remind members of the media who may be present or listening online of the need to fairly and accurately report the proceedings of the committee. I now welcome our witnesses. I really appreciate your time this evening. Although the committee does not require you to give evidence under oath, I should advise you that these hearings are formal proceedings of the parliament. Consequently, they warrant the same respect as proceedings of the parliament itself. Giving false or misleading evidence is a serious matter and may be regarded as a contempt of parliament. I now invite you to make brief opening statements before we proceed to discussion. Mr De Silva Wijeyeratne : The department doesn't have an opening statement. Ms Volzke : Neither does the Fair Work Ombudsman. CHAIR: Excellent. Let's proceed straight into discussion. As I'm sure you are well aware, we are now at the end of our public hearing process for the National Employment Standards inquiry. I know we had a conversation when we commenced some of this work, so it's really great to have this opportunity to invite your reflections on some of the evidence that we've heard in the course of this inquiry so far. I invite my colleagues to let me know when they want to ask some questions, but I have a few as chair to begin with. I'm not necessarily directing these questions at anyone in particular. I would hope that witnesses are able to determine who would be the best person to respond. It probably isn't a surprise to hear that multiple references were made through the course of this inquiry to the Mondelez decision and to how a day might be calculated for leave purposes and [inaudible] purposes. I would like to invite reflections or ideas around how we could fix the understanding in the National Employment Standards so that the intent of providing workers with the leave that corresponds with their hours of work can be reflected in a way that both is universal and allows for those situations where people might be on a 12-hour shift rather than a shorter shift. We particularly heard from workplaces where people are moving into different kinds of work patterns, such as four-day weeks, where they may be choosing to work longer hours. So time is emerging as a really key thing throughout the considerations of workers and employers about what a modern workplace might look like. I would like to invite your reflections on how we can resolve some of those issues that have emerged in recent times. Ms Maddock : Sorry, I couldn't quite hear everything that you were saying on the line, but I understand that you were interested in talking about the Mondelez evidence that had been put forward by witnesses. Is that right? CHAIR: What I'm saying now is that Mondelez has come up quite a bit in the course of this inquiry as a case study. Obviously the National Employment Standards are there to provide universal entitlements to people as a minimum. We have situations, though, where workers have different definitions of a day and might be entitled to different periods of leave. It could be 96 hours versus 120 hours or whatever the breakdown is. As I also mentioned, time is emerging as a really big thing for both employers and employees in the workplace, whether it be through different roster patterns or four-day weeks. How do we resolve this issue through an intervention in the National Employment Standards? Ms Maddock : I might start off and then throw to my colleague Ms Hallas to speak to the Mondelez decision in more detail. Yes, obviously stakeholders who have appeared before the committee have raised the issue of working time generally and working hours and that balance between providing worker protections to working hours and providing the flexibility that employers are seeking to be able to operate their businesses and how that can be best achieved. From the department's perspective, any proposals around Mondelez or specific proposals would be a matter for government. The department isn't in a position to comment on specific proposals that have been put forward. What we can talk about are some of the considerations that the committee might like to consider when thinking about its report and recommendations around this space. Generally, as you said, the National Employment Standards seek to provide that minimum basis that applies universally to all employees. The modern awards have been a key mechanism in which that industry and occupation-specific detail around the operation of a NES entitlement has been worked through by the Fair Work Commission. A probable consideration in all of this is around noting the breadth of different types of working arrangements and working patterns that have evolved over time since the Fair Work Act was established. To what extent is there the ability for a standard provision that takes into account all the different types of working patterns to be a fair and relevant standard in the National Employment Standards? You have heard evidence from people during the inquiry that things may be industry specific in some of the issues that are being raised, and whether or not it's relevant and appropriate to try to look to have something in the National Employment Standards. Part of that is thinking through any sort of proposal around working hours and, in the case of Mondelez, the accrual of personal leave. It's thinking through what kinds of impacts that might have both on workers and on employers. When you're looking at things that would change the value of how leave is accrued, consideration would need to be given as to whether you have something in the standard about some workers being better off or worse off under that situation and to what extent it might impact the flexibility that employers currently have in the awards system dealing with working hours. Consideration of entitlements that are in the National Employment Standards need to be thought through, so what that means for awards and enterprise agreements in ensuring consistency with how it is applied but also enabling awards to still play that role in providing industry and occupational arrangements that are tailored to those industries and occupations. You made some statements, some observations, around rostering as well. There have been a number of stakeholders who have appeared and have differing views on rostering and how it might be best achieved in providing clarity both for workers and for employers. Currently, the National Employment Standards don't deal with rostering. That is done through awards—again, taking into account the types of work and operations within industries and occupations. Again, it's that consideration as to how rostering could be balanced to protect workers but also enable that flexibility for businesses to meet their need. So I think your question is quite—there's a lot to it and a lot that would have to be further unpacked to really understand the flow-on impacts of any proposals in that space. But, again, if you're thinking about the purpose of the NES as being that minimum entitlements that apply universally to all employees and being able to ensure that it works and that the NES remains fair and relevant for both employees and employers—I'll pass to my colleague Ms Hallas. Ms Hallas : Following on from Ms Maddock's evidence, what I would say is that, in looking at the decision of Mondelez, the High Court clarified the treatment of the entitlements of 10 days of personal carers leave using the notional day approach. In doing so, it looked at the objects of the act and looked at what the basis and intention of the NES is, as the baseline principles of workers entitlements, and balanced with equity across the board as to what type of clarification would then have an impact on different types of workers. To the point of asking what we can we do, amending legislation is only one option. There are a range of other options, including the nature of the modern awards and enterprise agreements balancing and complementing the baseline and principles set out in the NES and looking at that approach and where it actually impacts industries in the first instance and also the clarification that can come with complementary education. Our colleagues at the FWO obviously have a role in that of being able to provide clarification through education and certainty rather than just simply an amendment, as I think some of the evidence that has come before the committee has been given. That's probably how I would add to that evidence. CHAIR: Another theme that came through fairly strongly from the evidence that we've heard has been the harmonisation of long service leave. We know that there's a long-ish history there of seeking to arrive at a harmonised or national scheme. We know there are still some zombie long-service-leave issues that lurk. We know that the idea, initially, when the Fair Work Act was introduced, was to have a national scheme. I believe that the starting date of 1 January 2015 was given in the first review of the act, and obviously that didn't happen. Again, we are just inviting reflections on what possible processes might be pursued, given that we've heard a range of different ideas and, as you would be well aware, there have been a range of different proposals over the years, as well. Mr De Silva Wijeyeratne : There have been broad stakeholder sentiments during the hearings regarding some of the challenges that are associated with the status quo for long service leave, going to issues such as complexity, consistency and avoiding inequitable outcomes. I think these are themes that we also canvassed during the department's previous appearance before the committee. As you've pointed to, there have been a series of recommendations that have been made by parliamentary inquiries, as well, that have reiterated some of those concerns and issues. The challenge, as you've pointed to, is fundamentally about agreeing on what a national standard could look like—whether it be a harmonised standard across states and territories or a standard incorporated into the NES itself, and there have been some previous efforts that have been made in that respect. Really, the challenge there is getting agreement as to what the design of the standard is and working through some of the transitional arrangements. Some of the complexity that does come with that is the need to agree on a range of key settings, and they go to things such as how much a week an employee is entitled to and the number of years of qualifying service that would be required, their accrual rates after crystallisation, accessibility on a pro-rata basis and how you define ordinary wages for the purpose of pay calculations and also cashing out provisions. There's also a need to agree to transitional arrangements about workers who are currently in the system and what happens in that. Really, there's a question of jurisdictions having views around whether or not their settings are more of less favourable to employers and employees and how you strike that balance considering business costs, regulatory complexity, enhancing or diminishing entitlements and continuing to have accessibility having regards to trends and mobility and forms of work. Unfortunately, I can't say I've got a silver bullet answer to that. It is something that would be quite an involved and complex negotiation, one that would be predicated, ultimately, on there being political will from states, territories and governments to work together to address these issues. That would be a matter, I suspect, for the committee to really assess both the case for change and scale of the appetite and policy need that there is for change in that respect. The other reflection we've had is that there are proposals for perhaps more technical amendments that could made potentially as an interim solution or arrangement. Again, it's difficult to comment on technical amendments in the abstract, but it is possibly something for the committee to consider in looking at the range of proposals for technical arrangements. It really goes to: to what extent would they actually address the underlying structural complexity that is there with the current system and would transitional arrangements made today further complicate the process of national reform in the future as well? CHAIR: Thank you for those reflections. I really appreciate them. You were talking about education earlier, and, again, that's a theme that has emerged. I think this is perhaps where the ombudsman [inaudible] also be able to interact with the evidence. We've heard from quite a few stakeholders around improvements to the Fair work information statement, for instance, and more detail being provided there, particularly in a way that makes it clear what corresponding industry awards and things like that are, which goes to that challenge of needing to strike the balance between something that is universal whilst understanding, obviously, that people work in different industries, sectors and occupations. I'm really just wanting to know the thoughts of our witnesses here around whether an enhanced Fair work information statement, in your view, would be useful for both compliance for employers and protecting the rights of employees. Ms Maddock : I'm happy to start, and then I'll hand over to the FWO if they have any further comments that they would like to make. Regarding an enhanced Fair work information statement, it's probably just reflecting on some of the considerations that would need to be taken into account on any approach to that. Currently, the purpose of the information statement is to have something easy, simple to read and easily accessible that highlights any employee's rights and entitlements as well where they can seek assistance. For employers, the purpose of the statement is to, again, have something that is easy for them to provide to their employees. Probably one of the considerations that would need to be given, noting that a lot of evidence from stakeholders around rights and entitlements that has come about for particular cohorts, such as young workers and the like, is what the requirements would be on employers to provide job specific information in the Fair work information statement—understanding what kind of administrative requirements that would put on employers, how that interacts with information that might be in a contract of employment as such, and understanding and working through what an employer would be required to do for a more specific type of information statement building on the current template that the FWO has developed. Ms Volzke : I might get Nicky Chaffer, our head of advice and education, to talk about what we already do to assist customers in this respect. Ms Chaffer : I would just add that, with regard to the Fair Work information statement, we're always open to feedback, and, of course, we'll consider all feedback received. The more specific the feedback, the better, because we do want to respond to the needs of our users as best we can. But I just want to highlight the process that we take to undertake the design documents, like the Fair work information statement. Obviously we are required to comply with section 124 of the act, and that tells us specifically what needs to be included in the FWIS. It is a really extensive list that we need to cover. The gazetted version that you see published today on the website is a co-design document. We extensively consulted with employer and employee representatives, with the Fair Work Commission and with other workplace relations stakeholders. That is to go to what was being said before about ensuring that we have an accessible and practical source of information, particularly for new employees. It's not a set-and-forget task. The FWIS has evolved over time, and we've been very responsive to legislative change, to policy development and to those user needs that I mentioned. I just want to highlight that we have conducted extensive user testing of the FWIS over time. We specifically test for appropriateness of the content. We want to make sure that it's easy to read. We use plain English, which is challenging sometimes with legislative terms, but we always ensure that it's as clear as possible without compromising the accuracy of the content. We test usability and comprehension. We actually sit there and watch and talk to people to see whether they understand what they're actually reading there. We also test that we have identified those further pathways for people. So, yes, it's a high-level document that provides the high-level information, but here are the pathways that you can use to get that really specific, tailored industry information as well. What our users have consistently told us over the evolution of this document is that they want it to be clear, as I mentioned, but as short as possible. The longer you make it, people aren't going to read it, so that is a challenge for us as well. How do we keep this short with the most important information? So, as was mentioned before, there are certainly are limits to the simplification and the redesign of the FWIS. For us, it's very much a balancing act. How do we meet our legislative obligations? But, of course, we've always got the users at front of mind there. So I just wanted to outline this to you. It's obviously a huge focus for us and something we're significantly invested in to ensure that it does meet those user needs. Ms Volzke : I might just add to Ms Chaffer's evidence without advocating for a particular position. I think that she's articulated really well about the time and effort that goes into all of our resources. At the time that the FWIS was first legislated, it was not so much of a digitised world that we live in now. So a focus on shortening but making sure that we get people to our website, which is the authoritative website on people's workplace entitlements and obligations, might be a better way to go, because we know that it's probably unlikely that a lot of people will sit down to read a dense three-page document, as I think the current statement is. CHAIR: Shifting topics a bit now, something that came up quite a bit from stakeholders in the inquiry was different ways to access leave. Part of that included how we define 'family' and how we understand the role of carers. I think there were a range of different suggestions around how different forms of leave for care may be accessed through the NES. There was also a considerable conversation—and this came through in the submissions too—around cultural and kinship leave. Obviously, there is that universal mission of the NES and the provision for a set amount of leave. But, as I said, there were a range of recommendations and suggestions made from witnesses and stakeholders around whether there is additional leave people can access and whether there are more grounds for access to the existing provisions for leave. I think we heard from quite a broad range of stakeholders here—from First Nations groups, from foster carers and from people who have lost children—and there were a range of different suggestions. I'm sure that the witnesses are aware of some of these, and I would invite your reflections, please. Ms Maddock : In regard to your comments around, firstly, the definition of 'family' that you mentioned in regard to personal carers leave and access to be able to use that form of leave. Yes, I think it's very fair to say that, since the act commenced, probably the recognition of different types of family arrangements and caring arrangements is much more relevant. I would say there's probably a community expectation now to recognise different forms of relationships. For example, you mentioned kinship relationships. I think across the board generally, in terms of that, the government has shown commitment to advancing First Nations equity and alike. Going back to the principles of the development of the NES, when you think about reflecting community expectations and supporting that equity and inclusion, that community expectation around recognition of other types of family arrangements is something that has been already adapted in, for example, other entitlements of the NES, such as paid family and domestic violence leave, which considers kinship arrangements. Also, in terms of to what extent outside of the NES, such as in enterprise agreements, some of these definitions have been expanded beyond what the NES entitlement is, looking at the proportion of enterprise agreements can be useful for looking at that. From the department's workplace agreements database, we do know that around 45 per cent of employees covered by enterprise agreements have access to an extended definition of 'family' under personal carers leave. So that provides some insights for consideration as to the extent to which it's being used. There's greater access to it already. I think consideration would need to be given to any change to a definition in the act, including 'family' in this case, just considering how it's used in the other entitlements of the NES. I mentioned paid family and domestic violence leave. Another entitlement that might be relevant is compassionate leave as well. And then there'd be consideration as to how any changes and stuff could be reflected appropriately in legislation to give that clarity to both workers and employers and then understanding how it operates. More broadly, with personal carers leave, there's been evidence from stakeholders that, when you're thinking about that leave entitlement as well, some of the other things that have been brought up that could also be considered in the context of, 'Are there appropriate, fair and relevant changes to the NES?' are around the situations in which personal carers leave may be used. For example—and it's in the department's submission—we recognise that the labour market has changed since the commencement of the Fair Work Act. We've now got over 50 per cent of women making up the labour force. So it's thinking about what types of situations might be appropriate to allow the use of personal and carers leave. There's been some evidence around use for medical appointments and the like. With every proposal, you would want to consider what it means in terms of employers, in being able to manage the implementation and absences and the like, but also consider the relevance of how employees are needing to use leave in the current environment, noting the breadth of different demographics that are in the labour force. One thing I would also point to in terms of access to leave and use of leave is that in our departmental submission we did point out some of the challenges that came about from the application of personal carers leave in emergency situations. For example, in COVID, there were situations where people were unable to access personal leave because they had to self-isolate, but they were not unfit for work. Also, with the bushfires back in 2019—our submission also referenced that—while employees could access carers leave to assist a member of a family or of a household when they're experiencing an emergency, a person who is experiencing their own emergency would not be able to access the personal leave to deal with that emergency. So, in terms of personal carers leave, there are probably a few considerations to think through how it can be applied in the most relevant way to the current workers and employers. CHAIR: Thank you for that. I think that information around 45 per cent of enterprise agreements having a more expansive definition is helpful to understand where those community expectations are and some benchmarking. That is useful in the exercise that we're undertaking at the moment. So, if it is okay, when we deliberate and as we go through the process of writing a report and making recommendations, would we be able to get some data around some of that? I'm thinking of a range of different things in terms of comparative data from when the NES first came into effect and now around people's access to leave and definitions of family through, as you say, the agreement process et cetera. Ms Maddock : Definitely. In our departmental submission there is a range of data which goes to a number of entitlements and access to entitlements above the NES. That's something that the committee could refer to. With regard to additional data questions that you may have, the department's always happy to take those and see what we can do. I'm not in a position to be able to confirm that we would be able to look at things like, for example, what percentage of enterprise agreements had a supplementary entitlement above the NES when the act commenced as opposed to now; that's something we'd need to talk through with our relevant workplace agreements database people. But we're very happy to receive questions that you have regarding data and assist where we can. CHAIR: Thank you very much for that. I really appreciate it. I'll just see if any colleagues have questions that they would like to ask. Ms Lawrence. Ms LAWRENCE: Thank you very much, everyone. If I could just jump to the team from the Fair Work Ombudsman, I'm just wondering, looking at your enforcement activity, whether you're able to describe which NES provisions generate the greatest legal uncertainty and are therefore consuming a disproportionate share of your regulatory resources and concerns. Ms Volzke : I might get Mr Fogarty to talk about that data on a granular level, but I think our proportion of NES entitlements that become requests for assistance which are most likely to lead to enforcement activity is a relatively low number I'll get Mr Fogarty to expand on that. Mr Fogarty : I can give you some data here. Whether it goes to the exact question of what we determine legal ambiguity I can't really state, but what I can give is the top issues from the NES that are the highest portrayed in our request for assistance numbers. When I say request for assistance, that's really a workplace dispute. Someone comes to us with an issue: they say that they haven't received their annual leave on termination—and then we will look to work through that workplace dispute. The numbers that I've got here are from a snapshot which align with the data that we've used in our submission. It's getting slightly delayed now, but, to keep it consistent, from 1 July 2022 through to 31 December 2025, we resolved or completed 92,205 disputes. Of those, around seven per cent related to NES entitlements, so that's around 7,328. Of those—the top five NES issues—the top one was annual leave, which was nearly four per cent of all completed disputes. The second was public holidays, which was around 1.2 per cent. The next one was notice of termination, at around 1.1 per cent. The next one was personal carers leave, around one-half of one percent. The fifth was redundancy pay. Ms LAWRENCE: That's really insightful and extraordinary that you've resolved 92,000 disputes. That's a significant workload. Then, for the 7,000, as you say, that relate to the NES, I appreciate you breaking the statistics down a little bit to give us a flavour as to where your area of focus is. With that in mind, are there specific NES provisions where you think clearer drafting would actually reduce the need for litigation or formal dispute resolution against annual leave, public holidays, the notice of termination or personal carers leave? Is there a way, do you think, you could tighten it to reduce that further? Ms Volzke : We've got a range of litigations, but our strategic enforcement approach obviously focuses on high impact matters but also just maintaining the integrity of all of the tools that we use, and the majority of them won't always raise legal or interpretation type issues. It's just simply that an employer, for example, might be served with a compliance notice to pay outstanding amounts of unpaid annual leave and notice of termination after the end of employment and they don't do so. There's nothing right now that comes to mind, from an NES specific entitlement, on the ground where I would necessarily say that at this point in time there should be clarification. Ms LAWRENCE: Okay. I'm just reflecting on the various witnesses we've heard throughout this inquiry, and it's interesting that you're not recommending clarification. Ms Volzke : Oh, it's not—I mean, I think there are particular policy issues that are being raised by a number of the submissions, but they don't necessarily go to, I guess, what I understood you to be asking about, where there might be ambiguity in the drafting— Ms LAWRENCE: Sure. Ms Volzke : I think those submissions, more broadly, are raising policy questions which would be matters obviously for government, and the department might be able to comment on those more specifically. Ms LAWRENCE: That circles back perhaps to the chair's opening questions around how the number of hours of a working week are calculated. You're framing that more as a policy matter than the way it's described in the NES. Ms Volzke : That's right. Obviously, Mondelez was a High Court decision and provided that accrual is by reference to hours, not days. So it's not that it's unclear; it's more whether it's actually the right policy setting for the regulated community. That's ultimately for the government. Ms LAWRENCE: There's been a lot of discussion throughout the inquiry but also in the media more recently with respect to emerging risks, potential legal risks, rising from AI and digital work. Do you have a view around whether the current NES framework can adequately address some of the future issues that may arise from the technological changes? Mr De Silva Wijeyeratne : I think the starting point for any discussion regarding AI is that the Fair Work Act framework and also Australia's work health and safety laws are intended to be technology neutral. They're meant to be adaptable and designed to be able to apply effectively to significant changes in technology, labour markets and the workplace. Having said that, of course, there is a broader focus across government in relation to ensuring that the AI transition does create a fairer, stronger Australia from which everyone benefits. That's reflected in the government's National AI Plan that was released in December 2025. That plan includes a focus on workforce and workplace impacts. In terms of the way that's being taken forward, I'd say there are probably a couple of key mechanisms. Firstly, Minister Rishworth has established a Tripartite AI Employment and Workplaces Forum to support that tripartite engagement in considering and supporting the National AI Plan. That forum brings together unions, peak industry bodies and government agencies, and they're engaging collaboratively on opportunities and challenges that are created by AI. Some of the focus areas for that forum include trust, capability, transparency, safety and productivity. You'd also be aware that there's been a recent Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence established. That will inquire into a number of matters relevant to the work of the department, including the workforce and skills implications of AI; the job creation and displacement; and AI's effects on the quality and security of jobs. Ms LAWRENCE: Chair, if I could— CHAIR: Sorry, I've got to throw to Ms Coker. Ms COKER: Firstly, I just want to thank you for your time this evening. I want to ask a question around education and engagement both for young people who are coming into the workforce and for businesses. One thing that's very much come through this inquiry is that there are many people who are not aware of their rights and there are many businesses that struggle to comply. I'm just wanting your reflections on further investments by the government that could actually assist in giving young workers more knowledge about their rights but also to help businesses to comply. Ms Volzke : I might get Nicky Chaffer to talk about the work that is always underway, and there's always more to do in the FWO and in the employer advisory service, in particular, which assists small business in ensuring they comply. Ms Chaffer : I will start by reiterating what Ms Volzke said. There's always more that we can do. I think, in our first appearance here, we spoke through some of the tools, resources and services that we have. We have our Fair Work infoline, our small-business helpline and an online portal, My account. We have a dispute assistance service and an employer advisory service. With respect to young workers in particular, there are dedicated resources across the website that are tailored to our young audiences. There's some industry-specific information as well. I would just mention the work that we're doing, and I mentioned some of the co-design and consultation that take place in the development of all of these resources for specific audiences. We work very closely with the FWO reference groups that are established to represent the priorities of the agency. The Fair Work Ombudsman, Anna Booth, established the FWO tripartite advisory group, where we work really closely with industry representatives. Really, that is not just working on these initiatives together but using these cohorts to extend our reach as well. One of the really powerful ways that we extend beyond the existing audiences that we have is through our communications channels. We have a very heavy presence on social media. There are ways that we can go about promoting that organically, but I do have to mention the power of marketing in this space. We invest funds for paid marketing because that allows us to reach out to audiences that we wouldn't ordinarily reach, but there are also parameters around how we can market, how we can spend that money, how much we can spend and the way in which we can spend it as well. When I say there is more to do, I think the mechanisms we have in place are working, but it's a continual investment. That comes down to what I'm talking about, which is marketing and putting further funds behind that as well. Ms COKER: It sounds like the work you're doing is extensive. I am also interested as a local MP. I think that to connect with local MPs and to give us an opportunity to work with you would be fantastic. I had a business forum today, and there are always opportunities for us to actually help because we're at the grassroots level. It's probably not necessarily related to the inquiry, but I'm always keen to actually work to get those tools to get out there and help businesses and help young people to understand their rights. Ms Maddock : The government has recognised the important role that unions and employer peaks can also play in this space for education and awareness. I want to note the Productivity, Education and Training Fund. The government has provided $88 million to unions and peak employer groups to provide support in the education, awareness and training of workplace relations reforms and, more broadly, the system to complement what the Fair Work Ombudsman does on education and awareness. Those grantees are the Australian Council of Trade Unions, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia and the Australian Industry Group. In terms of your interest in young workers and businesses understanding entitlements and also obligations, there are always opportunities through that program to further target any emerging themes that are coming out in terms of needs of workers and employers. Ms COKER: What would be good would be to see some sort of data which reflects the success of that investment by government. Thank you. I'll leave it there. CHAIR: Thank you very much, everyone, for your attendance here today. I appreciate it, especially given the time of evening. We are very grateful for all of your really valuable insights. You'll be sent a copy of the transcript to request any required corrections. I think Ms Coker just put in a request for some data there at the end, so we'll get in contact with you about that. Committee adjourned at 18:35