Political posts, an earlier anti-gay slur and Full Bench findings on natural justice, procedural fairness and legal error have put the temperament, judgment and methods of Fair Work Commissioner Jennifer Hunt under scrutiny her office cannot treat as background noise.
Published reports and Fair Work Commission decisions now sit in a sequence that is hard to ignore. Hunt put out political and transgender-related commentary after she had already been counselled over a homophobic slur.
A Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission found that her unilateral Facebook research denied natural justice. At least five of her decisions or certificates have been quashed for identified legal or procedural error.
Social media has featured in her public commentary and, in one published case, in her decision-making. If another person’s posts and photographs can inform how she assesses people who come before the Commission, her own public posts can inform a look at her judgment. She is entitled to hold personal views. A quasi-judicial officer is not entitled to treat the appearance of impartiality as optional.
Whether her post-Code political and social-media commentary complied with the Commission’s Member Code of Conduct is a matter of public interest. On the published material, News Cop’s view is that it did not; that is an editorial conclusion, not a finding by the Commission, a court or a Full Bench.
News Cop has asked Hunt and the Fair Work Commission to respond and is calling for an independent review. No court or Full Bench identified by this investigation has found Hunt actually biased, unfit for office or in breach of the Member Code of Conduct.
POSTS THAT BROUGHT THE EARLIER RECORD BACK
The most recent publicly reported controversy began with Facebook posts about transgender identity. Hunt also praised Coalition politicians and urged voters to support changes to sex-discrimination law.
The Australian Financial Review reported in June that she praised Coalition politicians, described government figures as “imbeciles” and urged electoral action over proposed changes to the Sex Discrimination Act. The newspaper quoted her as writing: “Not one man has ever transitioned into a woman.”
The language is inflammatory and the electoral pitch is partisan on its face. The question is not whether Hunt may hold those beliefs; it is whether a tribunal member bound to act judicially should publish polarising commentary on issues and communities that may come before the Commission.
By the time she published that commentary she had already been counselled over an anti-gay slur used at a Commission function. This was not the first time her language about sexuality or gender had attracted scrutiny.
Hunt defended her views and reportedly said she would recuse herself from any transgender or abortion-related proceeding where appropriate.
Vice-President Ingrid Asbury asked the Employment Minister to consider Hunt’s suspension or removal. A later reported settlement included Hunt agreeing to comply with the Code’s political and social-media provisions, while Asbury withdrew that request. The settlement was not a finding that Hunt breached the Code.
THE 2021 INCIDENT
The posts revived The Australian’s report that Hunt used a homophobic slur about a former male politician at a Commission function in 2021.
The remark was spoken at a workplace function. It was not a social-media post. Hunt confirmed the incident and said she did not intend to offend anyone present.
The newspaper reported that then Commission president Justice Iain Ross counselled her after staff objected, that she apologised to three staff members and expressed contrition, and that Ross later directed Commission members to attend LGBTIQA+ awareness training.
The incident predates the current Code, dated December 11, 2024, and this article does not treat it as a breach of that Code. The apology, counselling and training are relevant mitigating facts. Viewed with the later posts, though, 2021 is harder to park as remote history. The recurrence of language that had already drawn official concern raises a serious question about whether the counselling produced lasting change.
Neither the slur nor the posts proves actual bias in a particular proceeding. They go to judgment and temperament.
WHEN SOCIAL MEDIA ENTERED A HEARING
The concern is not confined to what Hunt posted herself. One published Full Bench decision records her using another person’s social-media activity in assessing a participant before her.
In CFMMEU v Watpac Construction [2019] FWCFB 3855, Hunt accessed a union representative’s personal Facebook page after the hearing and referred to his cover photograph without first inviting submissions. The Full Bench called the conduct “inappropriate” and held that it “constituted a denial of natural justice”.
The appeals were nevertheless dismissed. The Facebook reference was treated as a passing matter of little consequence and incapable of affecting the result. Hunt’s decision was not overturned in that case. The natural-justice finding remains on the record.
AT LEAST FIVE DECISIONS OR CERTIFICATES QUASHED
News Cop has identified at least five Full Bench matters between 2016 and 2024 in which a Hunt decision, ruling or certificate was quashed.
- Dr Kwee Lim v Trade & Investment Queensland [2016] FWCFB 6615 quashed her jurisdictional ruling after the Full Bench found errors in her treatment of several revenue-producing activities.
- Hunter v Anthony Costello Automotive [2017] FWCFB 5839 is the recusal case. The Full Bench found Hunt had repeatedly misstated the apprehended-bias test, wrongly dealt with a recusal application and the substantive issues together, and exceeded the Commission’s dispute-resolution function. Her decision was quashed and the matter remitted. “Consistently misstated” in that ruling concerned her formulation of the legal test. It was not a finding that she consistently misstated evidence.
- The fingerprint-scanning dismissal in Lee v Superior Wood [2019] FWCFB 2946 went the same way. Hunt had upheld the sacking of a worker who refused the scanners. The Full Bench held the direction was unlawful and, alternatively, unreasonable, quashed her decision and found the dismissal unfair on rehearing.
- Central Queensland Services v Odgers [2020] FWCFB 304 is the procedural-fairness case. The Full Bench found Hunt misapprehended the statutory task, acted on a wrong principle, relied on undisclosed material from unrelated proceedings and denied the employer procedural fairness. The decision was quashed and sent for redetermination by another member.
- In 2024, Kirkham v Monash University [2024] FWCFB 429 quashed both her decision and her certificate. The Full Bench found her mistaken jurisdictional view constrained proper consideration of the dispute, amounted to legal error and caused the statutory process to miscarry. The matter was remitted to Hunt.
Those cases do not establish that Hunt’s overall reversal rate is unusual. An appeal being upheld is not, by itself, evidence of misconduct or bias. The public-interest concern is the recurrence, across the adverse decisions, of basic adjudicative duties: remaining within the proper record, disclosing material, hearing the parties and applying the correct legal test.
THE CODE
The Code says Commission members must be firm but fair, even-handed and procedurally fair. It advises them to avoid involvement in political controversy and says their social-media conduct must promote public confidence in their impartiality, independence and integrity.
The Code is a guide rather than a prescriptive set of rules. No competent body identified by News Cop has formally found that Hunt breached it. A departure from its standards is not, without more, a statutory offence. That does not stop a publisher reaching an editorial conclusion from disclosed facts.
This article’s conclusion is that Hunt’s 2026 political and transgender-related social-media commentary was inconsistent with, and breached, the standards in sections 4.1, 4.1.4, 4.2, 4.3.1, 4.3.6 and 4.3.7.
The impartiality and political-ties clauses do most of the work. Section 4.1 says members’ public and private conduct should maintain confidence in their impartiality and that of the Commission; commentary rejecting transgender identity is capable of creating a reasonable concern among transgender litigants, witnesses and advocates about whether they would be approached without prejudice. Section 4.1.4 tells members to avoid public statements, including on social media, that imply political affiliation or orientation. Praising Coalition politicians, calling government figures “imbeciles” and urging electoral action were not politically neutral observations. Section 4.2, on independence, is difficult to reconcile with express alignment on one side of a live political controversy.
The same posts run against the integrity, public-debate and social-media clauses (4.3.1, 4.3.6 and 4.3.7) in a single stroke. They entered a live policy fight, named politicians, and were published on a platform the Code treats as practically permanent.
The Watpac finding predates the current Code and is not advanced as a breach of the 2024 instrument. It still supplies official context for why even-handedness and procedural fairness sit in that Code at all.
A QUESTION OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT
The chronology is the point. Hunt was counselled over the 2021 slur and later published political commentary rejecting transgender identity. Separately, Full Bench decisions have identified errors involving natural justice, procedural fairness, the correct legal test and reliance on undisclosed material.
Hunt has been willing in published reasons to make adverse observations about parties appearing before her. Her own public conduct warrants the same scrutiny. A homophobic slur at an official Commission function, polarising political commentary about transgender people and the description of government figures as “imbeciles” cannot readily be dismissed as a single lapse when they are read together.
The cumulative published record is capable of leaving a fair-minded reader with serious concerns about Hunt’s judgment as a decision-maker and about whether she would approach a matter independently, impartially and with an open mind. It is also capable of eroding confidence in the Commission’s ability to uphold the standards it sets for its members.
These are editorial conclusions drawn from the disclosed material. They are not findings that Hunt acted dishonestly, abused her office or was actually biased in a particular case. Whether the cumulative record warrants a formal finding or other action is what an independent review should determine.
That review should examine Hunt’s public political and social-media conduct against the Member Code of Conduct; her use of extraneous internet or social-media material, including procedures for disclosure and response; the combined significance of Full Bench findings, complaints, counselling and later public commentary; and whether existing complaint and appeal mechanisms can identify recurring concerns across unrelated matters.
Appeals correct individual cases. They do not ordinarily determine whether recurring conduct across proceedings reveals a broader problem of method, temperament or fitness. Public confidence requires that question to be tested independently, with procedural fairness to Hunt and a reasoned outcome made public.
Corrections and clarifications: News Cop will promptly correct or clarify any significant factual error brought to its attention. Any substantive amendment will be dated and identified here. Complaints may be made through News Cop’s published complaints process and will be assessed under its Professional Standards.
Disclosure: A Director of News Cop has been party to proceedings involving Commissioner Hunt not mentioned in this article. Commissioner Hunt and the Commission have been invited to respond to questions raised in this article. At the time of publication, they have not.
