Dear Fair Work Commission,

According to https://www.fwc.gov.au/hearings-decision... a member of the public may request an audio recording of a proceeding under FOI.

I request:
1. The audio recording of the case management hearing on 29 May 2025 for the Application for employee-like minimum standards order (MS2025/2)
2. A transcript of the hearing at point 1
3. The document provided by the applicant withdrawing their request.

There is a significant public interest in releasing this information. If at any point the decision maker is required to determine if something is in the public interest, I would respectfully request the ability to provide submissions before the decision is made.

I am open to (and encourage) processing this request administratively if possible. Otherwise, please consider this a formal FOI request.

Yours faithfully,

Ben Fairless

Dear Nick,

Thanks for your message. I’m still working on a comprehensive set of reasons that favour disclosure and I’m hopeful of getting it back to you by mid next week if that’s ok? I’m happy to agree to an extension of time if this would help you make an informed decision.

Yours sincerely,

Ben Fairless

Dear Nick,

Thank you for your email requesting further information on the public interest considerations relevant to my FOI request.

The public interest strongly favours the release of the requested documents under section 11B(3) of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (Cth).

Firstly, releasing these documents promotes the objects of the FOI Act (s 3), particularly by enhancing transparency and accountability of the Fair Work Commission (FWC). This was the first application specifically impacting rideshare workers under the recently established "employee-like minimum standards" framework, and there is significant public interest in understanding the reasons behind its sudden withdrawal. This framework represents a world-first regulatory approach to gig economy employment, further amplifying the public interest in understanding how the FWC is handling these novel and globally significant standards. The FOI Guidelines (para 6.19) explicitly recognise that transparency regarding government decisions and actions is crucial for maintaining public trust and accountability.

Secondly, disclosure will substantially inform public debate on an issue of considerable public importance - namely, the rights, protections, and working conditions of rideshare and gig economy workers across Australia. Given the extensive prior media coverage and active advocacy by groups such as the Transport Workers’ Union, informed public debate on these regulatory developments is vital. Section 11B(3)(b) specifically identifies facilitating public debate as a factor favouring disclosure. Access to these documents ensures discussions are based on direct evidence rather than speculation.

Thirdly, there is a clear accountability interest in understanding the reasons behind the sudden withdrawal of this significant application. Transparent decision-making processes within public bodies are fundamental to public trust. Any privacy or confidentiality concerns can be managed effectively by limited redaction of sensitive personal details under s 22 of the FOI Act, without undermining the documents' substantive content.

Additionally, the FOI Guidelines (para 6.19 and 6.22) issued by the OAIC strongly encourage proactive disclosure, particularly in cases involving significant public policy implications. These documents clearly fall within this scope, aligning with best-practice guidelines on transparency and open government.

On balance, potential factors against disclosure (such as limited privacy or procedural concerns) do not outweigh the compelling public interest favouring release. Indeed, withholding this information could undermine public confidence in the FWC’s new jurisdictional responsibilities, particularly as this application had the potential to set an influential precedent for the treatment of gig economy workers nationwide.

For these reasons, disclosure of the requested documents is firmly in the public interest, consistent with the objectives of the FOI Act and the OAIC guidelines.

If the Commission decides to impose charges or proposes significant redactions, I may provide further submissions at any review stage.

Kind regards,

Ben Fairless