Department Of Finance v the Respondent
Citation: [2026] FWCFB 172
At a glance
- Employees affected
- 1
What happened
The Applicant worked as an electorate officer and later a personal employee for Senator Malcolm Roberts from July 2019 until August 2025. His employment was enabled by determinations under the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984 (Cth). In July 2025, Determination 2025/24 revoked Determination 2019/10, ending Senator Roberts’ authorization to employ personal staff. This resulted in the Applicant's employment being automatically terminated on August 17, 2025. He subsequently worked a short-term contract for Senator Roberts and is now employed by Senator Pauline Hanson. The Applicant applied to the Fair Work Commission for an unfair dismissal remedy, which was initially supported by a Commissioner.
What was decided
The Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission allowed an appeal against the earlier decision that the Applicant had been unfairly dismissed. The bench found that his employment ended due to operation of law under section 14 of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act, not because he was dismissed by the employer. They quashed the Commissioner’s decision and dismissed the Applicant's application for an unfair dismissal remedy. The court emphasized that the revocation of a determination automatically terminates employment in specific circumstances.
What it means for employers
Employers operating under legislation like the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act need to be aware of how changes to enabling determinations can directly impact employee contracts and termination processes. Understanding the interplay between legislative provisions and employment conditions is crucial to avoid unintended consequences and potential disputes. The decision highlights that automatic termination clauses, triggered by legal changes, are distinct from dismissals.
What it means for employees
Employees whose positions are governed by specific legislation or determinations should be aware of how changes to those instruments can affect their employment security. While the outcome in this case resulted in an end to employment, employees should seek clarification and understand their rights when facing termination triggered by legal changes rather than employer action.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.fwc.gov.au/documents/decisionssigned/pdf/2026fwcfb172.pdfWant more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →