Key points

• The Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026 would amend the Fair Work Act 2009 to establish a framework for the Minister and Fair Work Commission (FWC) to enable road transport contract chain orders (RTCCOs) to take effect sooner.
• RTCCOs can set minimum standards for workers in the road transport industry by containing terms relating to a range of matters including fuel levies and cost recovery. RTCCOs are similar to minimum standards orders that the FWC can make to cover employee-like workers doing digital platform work.
• The Bill would empower the Minister to determine that certain applications to make, vary or revoke RTCCOs are emergency applications if, having regard to the road transport objective, the Minister is satisfied that events or circumstances have occurred or are occurring that are having, or are likely to imminently have, a  significant national negative impact on the road transport industry.
• RTCCOs that are made or varied in response to emergency applications are time‑sensitive RTCCOs.
• The relevant effects of this framework would be that:
  • time-sensitive RTCCOs may take effect sooner
  • the FWC could determine a shorter period for consultation on the making, variation or revocation of time-sensitive RTCCOs
  • orders made by the President of the FWC regarding prioritisation of the FWC’s work do not apply to the determination of emergency applications
  • suspensions of time-sensitive RTCCOs could apply for a maximum of 3 months, instead of a maximum of 12 months for other RTCCOs.
• At the time of writing, the Bill had not been referred to or reported on by any parliamentary committees.

Introductory Info

Date of introduction: 26 March 2026
House introduced in: House of Representatives
Portfolio: Employment and Workplace Relations
Commencement: The day after Royal Assent

Purpose of the Bill

The Fair Work Amendment (Fairer Fuel) Bill 2026 (the Bill) amends the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) to ensure that certain road transport contractual chain orders (RTCCOs) can be made by the Fair Work Commission (FWC) and have effect more quickly than under the current legislation. RTCCOs affect the minimum standards for contractors, employee-like workers, and other workers in the road transport industry. They can include specific terms about matters such as fuel levies and cost recovery. RTCCOs do not confer rights or impose obligations on employees in the industry (FW Act, subsection 536PD(2).)

Currently, a period of at least 12 months must pass between the day the notice of intent for an RTCCO is published, and the day of that that RTCCO takes effect (FW Act, subsection 536NT(3)). If the FWC is satisfied that circumstances urgently require it, this period may be reduced to 6 months (FW Act, subsection 536NT(4)). Similar periods are in place regarding the variation and revocation of RTCCOs.

The Explanatory Memorandum (EM) recognises that mandatory consultation timeframes limit the FWC’s ability to respond promptly to disruptions which can adversely affect the industry, such as sharp fuel price spikes from overseas supply pressures (EM, p. 1).

As explained in the EM, ‘[t]he Bill is intended to support timely regulatory responses to sudden disruptions affecting the road transport industry, such as sharp increases in fuel prices, while retaining existing procedural safeguards and limiting the scope of the expedited arrangements’ (EM, p. 2).

The Bill would do this by empowering the Minister to determine if applications for RTCCOs are emergency applications and would define any RTCCO made or varied by the FWC in response to an emergency application to be a ‘time-sensitive road transport contractual chain order’ (time-sensitive RTCCO).

In addition to empowering the FWC to reduce the period before which time-sensitive RTCCOs could take effect, the Bill would also amend the applicable mandatory consultation periods for the making of certain RTCCOs and change the maximum suspension periods for RTCCOs.

Background

On 23 March 2026, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations Amanda Rishworth and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government Catherine King announced the proposed legislative changes to enable the making of emergency applications for RTCCOs.

The EM to the Bill states that ‘[t]he framework [to make RTCCOs] recognises that the road transport industry is characterised by complex contractual chains which mean that pay and conditions in the industry are often driven by upstream commercial pressures’ (EM, p. 1).

The Fair Work Ombudsman publishes information about the operation of RTCCOs, as well as related, non-binding guidelines.

Introduction of the framework

The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024 (Closing Loopholes Act) amended the FW Act in August 2024 to establish the framework for setting minimum standards for regulated workers. This was intended to provide greater workplace protections for gig workers and those engaged in the road transport industry, who may not meet the traditional definition of an ‘employee’. The Parliamentary Library’s Bills Digest for the Closing Loopholes Act contains some information about the operation of this framework as proposed (see, eg, p. 29).

RTCCOs set minimum standards and entitlements for contractors, employee-like workers and other people in road transport contractual chains. RTCCOs have binding legal effect. Terms to be included in a RTCCO may relate to payment times, fuel levies, rate reviews, termination, and cost recovery, but are not limited to these matters.

Under this framework, the FW Act allows for the Fair Work Commission (FWC) to make contract chain orders under section 536PD, either of its own initiative or on application from parties listed under subsection 536PE(1). At the time of writing, there are currently three active cases before the FWC dealing with applications for RTCCOs. All these applications were made by the Transport Workers' Union of Australia. It does not appear that any RTCCO has been finalised since the introduction of the framework for setting minimum standards for regulated workers.

Through the Australian Infrastructure and Transport Statistics Yearbook 2025, the Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics published figures indicating that 252.9 billion tonne-kilometres of road freight were estimated to have been moved in Australia over 2024-25 (p. 23), and that, as of August 2025, there were 273,500 people employed in the road transport industry in Australia (p. 206). However, it is not immediately clear what the count of non-employee workers who might be covered by RTCCOs are.

A publication available on IBISWorld, Road Freight Transport in Australia, published in March 2026, indicates that the market share of the four largest companies in the road freight transport industry has not risen beyond 10% in the past 5 years, and states that (p. 19):

The Road Freight Transport industry in Australia is highly fragmented, with the largest four providers capturing only a minor proportion of overall revenue.

This fragmentation arises primarily because the majority of operators specialise within distinct niches, like mining transportation, construction material shipments, or agricultural products. Different product requirements necessitate tailored logistical approaches, preventing any single firm from capturing substantial market share.

Market share concentration varies notably across product segments and geographies. For instance, the grocery retailing segment demonstrates higher concentration because major supermarkets like Woolworths and Coles depend heavily on contractual arrangements with a limited number of logistics providers.

Policy position of non-government parties/independents and key stakeholders

Key stakeholders

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ACCI) has called for amendments to the Bill, with the ACCI CEO stating the Bill gives the Minister:

… extraordinary powers of intervention into the industry on an ongoing basis, rather than being specific to the current rise in fuel prices … [t]he fact the Fair Work Commission may be asked to consider terms such as payment or contract terminations means that it may lose its focus on fuel prices and cost recovery.

The Australian Trucking Association (ATA) welcomed the Bill. In a media release, the ATA stated:

… the terminal gate price of diesel had risen from less than 166 cents per litre to more than 295 cents per litre because of the Iran war. It is the biggest fuel price spike in history, and there is no end insight …

[t]rucking businesses cannot absorb this increase, and most cannot pass it on.

The National Road Transport Association (NatRoad) has called for multiple measures the Government should take. On 25 March 2026, before the introduction of the Bill, NatRoad stated that:

… [a]llowing the passing of fuel costs through contractual chain orders is a good first step announced by the Government this week. However, caution is needed and NatRoad is working to clarify if there are any unintended consequences for members with these changes to the Fair Work Act.

On 27 March 2026, NatRoad published more critical commentary on the Bill, stating that ‘most small to medium operators simply could not survive until Fair Work Changes flowed through’. NatRoad stated:

… recent announcements, including emergency Fair Work Commission powers and moves toward better fuel monitoring failed to address the immediate needs of industry.

…

NatRoad is calling on the Federal Government to urgently implement three immediate measures to keep trucks on the road and prevent further economic disruption:

• Activate emergency financial support payments for affected transport businesses
• Introduce a six-month moratorium on heavy vehicle equipment loan repayments through lender hardship arrangements
• Immediately remove the Road User Charge for heavy vehicles.

The Transport Workers Union (TWU) has welcomed the Bill, with the TWU National Secretary stating that:

… [w]e are already seeing the industry at crisis point: mounting financial stress, small businesses forced to park up their trucks, and more deadly pressure on drivers to cut corners, skip maintenance, and push through fatigue just to stay afloat.

This urgent bill would ensure clients at the top of the supply chain—retailers, mining companies and manufacturers—pay their fair share of increasing fuel costs. Many have already taken action, but there are too many others pushing costs onto those least able to absorb it. Any delay will see serious impacts on our supply chains and safety on our roads.

Non-government parties and independents

In debate on the Bill before the House of Representatives on Thursday 26 March 2026, several non-government and independent Members criticised the lack of time available in which to scrutinise the Bill, noting that this was not necessarily criticism of the provisions of the Bill.

The Shadow Treasurer Tim Wilson stated:

… [the Government] have stapled [the Bill] on to the motion for another bill and forced the debate on it, and the consequence is that it's not just that the opposition who will not have the chance to scrutinise it; the Australian people won't have the chance to scrutinise it. Of course, there will be no chance for those people who understand this legislation to step through it one by one.

Ms Zali Steggall MP:

In the context of what is currently occurring in our transport sector, with fuel prices spiking, I accept that there is a need for this to be acted upon urgently, but I ask the major parties: please behave better and allow us proper scrutiny of legislation.

Dr Anne Webster MP advised:

We hear today that one in five farmers is making the decision not to sow a crop. What is this Labor government doing about it? … They're panic legislating … they're allowing truckies to put their prices up according to the fuel they're paying for. Great! Guess what. There is a flow-on effect, Labor. Prime Minister Albanese needs to understand that, if people cannot afford their groceries and they cannot afford vegetables, they won't buy them. Guess what happens when Australians don't eat fresh vegetables and fruit. You know what. They get sick. So our health prices will also go up.

Mr Ben Small MP proposed a second reading amendment to the Bill calling on the Government to ‘explain why provisions for a temporary crisis are permanent’.

Ms Kate Chaney MP provided questions she would have asked regarding the Bill, but was unable to in the time available for debate:

I would be asking: How narrowly defined are the imminent and significant negative effects? What objective criteria must be met before the minister can reduce the consultation period?

I would have been asking: what transparency or accountability mechanisms apply to the minister's authorisation decision, and will reasons be published?

I would be asking: how does the government ensure this emergency mechanism doesn't become a de facto shortcut used in non-exceptional circumstances?

I would be asking: how will the commission ensure expedited orders don't unintentionally disadvantage small transport businesses or sole operators higher up the chain?

I would have asked: with reduced timeframes, how will genuine engagement with industry stakeholders be assessed and enforced in practice?

I would have been asking: how will orders made under expedited timeframes be time limited or subject to automatic review once market conditions stabilise?

I would ask: is the intent of the amendment strictly limited to fuel price shocks, or could it be applied to other cost pressures such as insurance or tolls or other compliance costs?

I would have asked: how has consideration been given to how contractual change orders may affect competition, freight pricing and downstream consumers?

I would have asked: what evidence from existing contractual chain orders show that cost-sharing mechanisms actually improve safety, sustainability and viability for drivers?

And I would have asked: how does this emergency measure align with longer term reforms aimed at improving resilience, sustainability and fairness in the road transport supply chain?

Key issues and provisions

Making emergency applications and effects of time-sensitive RTCCOs

Item 1 of the Bill would insert two terms, ‘emergency application’ and ‘time-sensitive road transport contractual chain order’ to be defined in section 12 of the FW Act:

emergency application, in relation to an application for a road transport contractual chain order, or an application for a determination varying or revoking a road transport contractual chain order: see subsections 536PEA(1) and (2).

time-sensitive road transport contractual chain order means a road transport contractual chain order made or varied as a result of an emergency application.  

Item 8 would introduce new section 536PEA to the FW Act, which would outline the process under which the Minister may determine that an application to make, vary or revoke an RTCCO is an emergency application.

Proposed subsection 536PEA(1) would provide that an application for making, revoking or varying an RTCCO is an emergency application where the Minister makes a subsection 536PEA(3) determination.

Proposed subsection 536PEA(3) would empower the Minister to determine, by notifiable instrument, that an application referred to in subsection 536(1) is an emergency application.

In determining whether an application is an emergency application, the Minister must have regard to the road transport objective (FW Act, section 40D), which provides that:

In performing a function or exercising a power under this Act, the Expert Panel for the road transport industry must take into account the need for an appropriate safety net of minimum standards for regulated road transport workers and employees in the road transport industry, having regard to the following:

1. the need for standards that ensure that the road transport industry is safe, sustainable and viable;
2. the need to avoid unreasonable adverse impacts upon the following:
   1. sustainable competition among road transport industry participants;
   2. road transport industry business viability, innovation and productivity;
   3. administrative and compliance costs for road transport industry participants;
3. the need to avoid adverse impacts on the sustainability, performance and competitiveness of supply chains and the national economy;
4. the need for minimum standards in road transport contractual chains.

For the Minister to determine that an application for an RTCCO is an emergency application, the Minister must be satisfied, having regard to the road transport objective, that:

1. an event or circumstance, or series of events or circumstances, has occurred or is occurring; and
2. the event or circumstances, is currently having, or is likely to imminently have, a significant national negative impact on the road transport industry; and
3. it is in the public interest to make the determination (proposed subsection 536PEA(3)).

The EM states (p. 8, paragraph 19):

It is intended that this would confer a discretion on the Minister, involving a measure of subjectivity. The Minister would be expected to have a rational basis for their satisfaction, including having regard to relevant information, evidence or data over and above generalised speculation as to the impact of the of the circumstance or event on the road transport industry nationally.

Determinations by the Minister under proposed section 536PEA would be exempt from merits review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, but would be judicially reviewable by the Federal Court under section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 or the High Court under section 75(v) of the Constitution. The EM explains that this is consistent with the approach for existing Ministerial declaration powers under the FW Act, namely for declarations terminating industrial action (section 431), or deferring (section 536PU) or suspending (section 536PX) the operation or application of an RTCCO (EM, p. 9, paragraph 21).

Prioritisation of work by the FWC

Item 9 deals with the FWC’s prioritisation of work in accordance with orders from the President of the FWC.

Currently, the President of the FWC must make an order under subsection 582(4D)  that directs the FWC how to prioritise its work under Part 3A‑2, dealing with minimum standards for regulated workers, and Part 3B‑2, dealing minimum standards for persons in a road transport contractual chain.

Section 536PF sets out particular matters that the FWC must take into account in making a decision on a RTCCO. Item 9 would introduce proposed subsection 536PF(3), which would provide that, where the FWC is determining an application for an RTCCO or a variation of a RTCCO, and the application is an emergency application, a direction under subsection 582(4D) does not apply.

The EM (pp. 9–10, paragraph 24) provides that:

The Commission could prioritise an emergency application above a matter with higher priority even if this would be inconsistent with an existing direction. This would enable the Commission to progress emergency applications promptly, without potentially having to amend an existing prioritisation direction, which could be a time and resource intensive process.

Terms to be included in time-sensitive RTCCOs

Item 16 would introduce a requirement for certain terms to be included in time-sensitive RTCCOs.

It would insert proposed section 536PQA, which would require a time-sensitive RTCCO to include one or more terms relating to the event, circumstance, or series of events and circumstances to which the order relates (proposed subsection 536PQA(1)).

Such terms may be about, but would not be limited to, the following matters (proposed subsection 536PQ(2)):

1. payment times;
2. fuel levies;
3. rate reviews;
4. termination, including one way termination for convenience;
5. cost recovery.

Proposed subsection 536PQ(3) would require that variations to a non-time-sensitive RTCCO made in response to an emergency application must include one or more of these terms relating to the event, circumstance, or series of events or circumstances to which the emergency application relates.

Non-retrospective application

Item 31 would have the effect of ensuring that the Minister could only determine an application to be an emergency application after the commencement of Schedule 1of the Bill, in relation to an application for an RTCCO, or a variation or revocation of an RTCCO, that is also made after the commencement of Schedule 1 of the Bill (EM, p. 15, paragraph 68).

Allowing time-sensitive RTCCOs to take effect sooner

Section 536NT sets out when a RTCCO comes into operation and provides that generally this must be at least 12 months after the FWC publishes a notice of intent stating that it proposes to make a RTCCO (subsection 536NT(3)). This period may be shortened to 6 months if the FWC is satisfied that the circumstances urgently require it (subsection 536NT(4)).  

Item 2 would repeal and replace subsection 536NT(4) to empower the FWC to reduce the 12-month period before which an RTCCO can take effect to another period that the FWC considers is reasonable, where the order is a time-sensitive RTCCO.

The Bill would preserve the current situation for non-time-sensitive RTCCOs.

Shortening consultation and notice requirements for certain RTCCOs

The Bill would change the requirements around the publication of draft RTCCOs and consultation around these drafts. The effect would be that, for time-sensitive RTCCOs, the FWC could reduce the consultation period from 12 months to another period that the FWC considers reasonable. It would also establish that providing a short period to make written submissions may provide a reasonable opportunity to make submissions in relation to time-sensitive RTCCOs.

Consultation and notice for making, varying, and revoking RTCCOs

Item 10 would expand what constitutes a reasonable opportunity to make a submission on a draft time-sensitive RTCCO. Currently, subsection 536PH(1) requires the FWC to ensure affected entities have a reasonable opportunity to make written submissions in relation to the draft of a RTCCO.

Item 10 would insert proposed subsection 536PH(1A), stating ‘[t]o avoid doubt, if the draft is of a time-sensitive road transport contractual chain order, a short period to make written submissions may be a reasonable opportunity.’ (emphasis added). The EM (p.10, paragraph 28) provides that what constitutes a ‘short period’ would be for the FWC to determine and ‘depending on the nature of the circumstances, a “short period” could be as short as a few working days…as long as the shortened period still provided affected entities with a reasonable opportunity to make submissions in relation to the draft order’.

Items 11 and 12 together would repeal and replace provisions relating to the finalisation of draft RTCCOs.

Currently, where the FWC makes significant changes to a draft RTCCO, paragraph 536PJ(2)(a) prevents the FWC making the final RTCCO based on the original draft. Instead, the FWC is required to publish a subsequent notice in relation to the revised draft (paragraph 536PJ(2)(b)), and undertake a new consultation process over the 12 month period from the date of the subsequent notice (paragraph 536PJ(2)(c)). This subsequent 12 month consultation period may be reduced to a period of at least 6 months if the FWC is satisfied that the circumstances urgently require it (subsection 536PJ(3)).

Items 11 and 12 together would empower the FWC to reduce this 12-month period to another period that the FWC considers is reasonable if the order is a time-sensitive RTCCO. They would preserve the requirement to publish a subsequent notice and undertake a new consultation process.

They would also preserve the 12-month consultation period required for revised draft RTCCOs that are non-time-sensitive RTCCOs, and provisions for reducing the consultation period for non-time-sensitive RTCCOs to a period of no shorter than 6 months, if the FWC is satisfied that the circumstances urgently require it.

Consultation and notice for varying or revoking RTCCOs

Items 29 and 30 would amend the consultation period requirements that apply to proposed variations or revocations of an RTCCO in circumstances where the operation of some or all of that RTCCO has been deferred by the Minister under sections 536PU or the FWC under 536QB.

If the FWC determines to vary or revoke an RTCCO in these circumstances, it must publish notice of its intention to do so, along with a draft of the RTCCO as proposed to be varied if applicable (subsection 536QL(1)).

If the FWC decides to make significant changes to a draft RTCCO as proposed to be varied, the FWC would be required to publish a subsequent notice in relation to the revised draft (paragraph 536QN(2)(b)), and undertake a new consultation process over the 12-month period from the date of the subsequent notice (paragraph 536QN(2)(c)).

Items 29 and 30 together seek to empower the FWC to reduce this 12-month period to another period that the FWC considers is reasonable if the order is a time-sensitive RTCCO. Item 30 would insert proposed subsection 536QN(4) with the effect that, where the FWC makes significant changes to a draft RTCCO as proposed to be varied, the FWC could reduce the subsequent 12-month consultation period to another period the FWC considers reasonable if the RTCCO is a time-sensitive RTCCO.

The current requirement of publishing a subsequent notice of intent and revised draft would be preserved.

Item 28, like item 10 above, would expand what constitutes a reasonable opportunity to make submissions on a proposed variation or revocation of an RTCCO whose operation has been deferred. Currently, subsection 536QM(1) requires the FWC to ensure affected entities have a reasonable opportunity to make written submissions to the FWC in relation to such proposals.

Item 28 would insert proposed subsection 536QM(1A), stating ‘[t]o avoid doubt, if the proposed variation or revocation is of a time-sensitive road transport contractual chain order, a short period to make written submissions may be a reasonable opportunity’ (emphasis added).

The EM explains that this would allow the Commission to expedite consideration of whether to revoke time-sensitive RTCCOs, including where the RTCCO has been suspended in response to a submission that it is no longer required (EM, pp. 14–15, paragraph 61).

Suspension of RTCCOs

Several items in the Bill deal with powers to suspend RTCCOs, including powers to suspend time-sensitive RTCCOs. The effect of the Bill would be that the Minister and the FWC would be able to suspend time-sensitive RTCCOs for a period of no longer than 3 months, rather than the period of 12 months that currently applies for non-time-sensitive RTCCOs.

Maximum periods of suspension declarations

Currently, the Minister can, by notifiable instrument make a suspension declaration, suspending the application of all or part of a RTCCO if they consider that it is in the public interest to do so (subsection 536PX(1)). Similarly, the FWC may, on application by a prescribed person or body, make a suspension determination (subsection 536QG(1)).

Such declarations and determinations must specify the period of the suspension, which may not be longer than 12 months and cannot commence retrospectively (subsection 536PX(3) and subsection 536QG(3)).

Items 19–21 and items 25–27 would change the maximum periods for which the Minister and the FWC, respectively, could suspend time-sensitive RTCCOs.

Items 21 and 27 would introduce the definition of ‘relevant period’, which would be 3 months for a time-sensitive RTCCO, and 12 months for any other RTCCO.

Items 19–20 and items 26–27 would remove requirements that suspensions not exceed 12 months and instead provide that they must not exceed the relevant period.

The EM explains that ‘[t]hese amendments ensure that the timeframe within which a suspension declaration may be made in appropriately aligned with the shorter duration and urgent nature of time-sensitive RTCCOs, while preserving the existing framework for all other RTCCOs’ (EM, p. 14, paragraph 53).

It also states that ‘[i]t may be appropriate for the Commission to make a suspension determination relating to a time-sensitive RTCCO if the time-sensitive RTCCO is no longer required because the event or circumstances it was made in relation to has passed.’ (EM, p. 14, paragraph 57).

Timeframes for making suspension declarations and length of suspension determinations

Currently, section 536PY requires that suspension declarations be made by the Minister within 12 months of certain dates (which relate to when the RTCCO came into operation, in whole or in part) and section 536QG provides that the FWC may, on application, make a suspension determination for a period of no more than 12 months.

Items 22–27 would amend the provisions regarding the timeframes for making suspension declarations and the length of suspension determinations.

Items 24 and 27 would introduce the definition of a relevant period for making declarations and for the duration of determinations. The relevant period would be 3 months for a time-sensitive RTCCO, and 12 months for other RTCCOs.