TL;DR
Australia’s Fair Work Commission has announced a process review after an estimated 70% workload increase over three years, partly driven by generative AI tools that enable more people to file longer, more complex, and sometimes inaccurate claims. New Zealand’s Tenancy Tribunal and Australia’s financial complaints authority report similar patterns.
Australia’s Fair Work Commission has announced a review of its processes to cope with what it described as an estimated 70% workload increase over three years, driven in part by the proliferation of generative AI assistance tools. The commission, which handles unfair dismissal claims, wage disputes, discrimination, bullying, and workplace sexual harassment, said the surge is directly affecting its ability to provide timely dispute resolution, according to a statement published on Friday.
The numbers tell the story. The commission received 44,039 lodgments between July 2025 and April 2026, with two months still remaining in the financial year. The full 2024–25 year saw a record 44,075 lodgments. The commission is on pace to exceed that record by a significant margin.
How AI changes what gets filed
The commission attributed the increase to several factors: more people representing themselves in workplace cases, budget constraints, resourcing challenges, and the spread of generative AI tools that make it easy to produce polished-sounding but often generic content. The implication is that AI is lowering the barrier to filing a claim, enabling people who might previously have decided a case was not worth pursuing to generate a detailed submission in minutes.
The 💜 of EU tech
The latest rumblings from the EU tech scene, a story from our wise ol’ founder Boris, and some questionable AI art. It’s free, every week, in your inbox. Sign up now!
The Fair Work Commission published draft guidance in March requiring anyone who uses generative AI in preparing documents for lodgment to disclose that fact. The guidance warned that AI-generated information may be incomplete, inaccurate, or fabricated. A new “Use of GenAI” section will be built into all commission forms.
What the commission is doing about it
The response includes trialling a new system in which senior staff help parties try to resolve disputes informally earlier in the process, before cases consume full hearing time. The commission has also reviewed how it manages applications and is considering deploying an AI voice agent to help triage calls to its helpline.
The irony of a tribunal overwhelmed by AI-generated filings considering an AI tool to manage the influx is not lost. Australia has already backed AI in other parts of its legal system, including a government-supported chatbot that helps splitting couples divide their assets. But the logic is sound: if generative AI is increasing the volume of inbound work, automated triage may be the only way to keep pace without proportional increases in staffing that budget constraints have already ruled out.
Not just an Australian problem
The pattern is emerging across the Tasman as well. Radio New Zealand reported last month that tenants in New Zealand are using AI to support applications to the Tenancy Tribunal, creating extra work and backlog. In one case, a tenant used AI to file a claim for $40,000 over issues including unsafe drinking water and a broken dryer. The tribunal awarded $80.
The case illustrates a recurring problem with AI-generated legal filings. The tools can produce arguments that sound authoritative but cite legal principles that do not apply in the relevant jurisdiction, claim damages wildly out of proportion to the harm, or reference legal frameworks from other countries entirely. Adjudicators then have to work through pages of material to identify which parts are relevant.
The financial complaints parallel
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority, which handles disputes in financial services, told Bloomberg it has also seen increased AI use in how consumers engage with financial firms and lodge complaints. A spokesperson acknowledged that AI can help some people articulate their concerns, but warned that AI-generated complaints “can sometimes include irrelevant, inaccurate or generic information, or may use legal arguments that don’t apply in Australian law.”
AFCA said it encourages people to keep their complaints simple because lengthy AI-generated submissions slow down the resolution process by forcing staff to work through large volumes of material to identify the actual issues. The advice amounts to an admission that more words do not mean a better case, and that AI’s tendency to produce verbose, confident-sounding output is actively counterproductive in dispute resolution.
Access to justice or access to noise
The tension at the heart of the issue is genuine. AI tools can democratise access to legal processes for people who cannot afford lawyers, a point governments and AI companies have promoted as a public benefit. But when the same tools generate filings that are longer, less accurate, and harder to process than what a human would produce unaided, the net effect may be to slow down the system for everyone.
Australia’s Fair Work Commission is the first major tribunal to publicly frame generative AI as a contributing factor in its workload crisis. It is unlikely to be the last. Any institution that accepts written submissions from the public is now dealing with the same dynamic: AI makes it trivially easy to generate text, and institutions built for a world of human-paced filing are not equipped to process the result.
