Skip to content
People HubHR Compliance

Pay Secrecy Clauses Are Gone: What This Means for Your Business

Most Australian business owners have a working understanding of workplace compliance. You know the basics.

By Andrew Northcott·14 April 2026·5 min read·Last reviewed 8 July 2026

The short answer

Under Australian workplace law, pay secrecy terms in employment contracts are unenforceable, and employees now have a positive right to share, or choose not to share, information about their own pay and conditions. For your business this means you cannot prevent staff from discussing remuneration, and contract templates should be updated to remove any secrecy clauses. Check current obligations with the Fair Work Ombudsman, as new terms breaching this rule can attract penalties.

Under changes introduced through the Fair Work legislation, pay secrecy terms in employment contracts are no longer enforceable, and employees now have a positive right to talk about their pay. For many owners this feels like a loss of control, but it's more accurately a prompt to make sure your pay decisions can stand up to being discussed openly. Here's what actually changed and what to do about it.

What the law now says

Two things are true. First, employees have a workplace right to disclose (or not disclose) their own remuneration and related terms, and to ask other employees about theirs. Nobody is compelled to share anything, but nobody can be stopped from doing so. Second, any pay secrecy clause in a contract is unenforceable, and employers can't take adverse action against someone for exercising this right — treating disclosure as a disciplinary matter is itself a breach.

Importantly, this isn't only a rule for new contracts. Existing pay secrecy terms carry no legal force regardless of what an older contract says, and continuing to include and enforce such terms in new contracts can attract penalties. Check the Fair Work Ombudsman for the current detail on how the prohibition and penalties apply.

The practical implications

The real shift isn't legal, it's cultural. When pay can be discussed freely, any inconsistency in how you pay people becomes visible — and it's the inconsistencies you can't explain that cause problems.

  • Two people doing substantially the same work for materially different pay, with no defensible reason, is now a conversation waiting to happen.
  • Pay gaps that track along gender or other protected lines are both a legal exposure and a reputational one.
  • Ad-hoc pay decisions made to retain someone who threatened to leave tend to look arbitrary once they're compared with everyone else.

None of this means you must pay everyone identically. It means your pay differences need a reason you'd be comfortable saying out loud — experience, scope, performance, qualifications, market rates for the role.

What to do first

A short, practical sequence will get you most of the way:

  • Fix your contracts. Remove pay secrecy clauses from your standard template so new contracts comply, and stop relying on the terms in existing ones.
  • Review your current pay against your obligations. Make sure every employee is at least meeting the relevant Modern Award or enterprise agreement rate for their classification — award underpayment is a separate and serious risk that open pay conversations will surface quickly.
  • Look for gaps you can't explain. Map roles and pay side by side and ask whether each difference has a clear, consistent rationale. Address the ones that don't.

Get your pay framework onto some structure

The durable answer to pay transparency is a simple, defensible framework rather than a set of individual negotiations you can't reconcile later. That usually means defining pay bands or ranges for your roles, tied to award classifications where they apply, and being clear about what moves someone within a band — capability, responsibility, tenure. It doesn't have to be elaborate. It has to be consistent and explainable.

The businesses that adapt best treat this as an opportunity to tidy up something that was probably overdue. Structured, well-reasoned pay is easier to administer, easier to defend, and easier to explain to a good employee who asks why they earn what they earn. Our people hub covers the wider set of obligations this connects to.

Handling the conversations

Expect that some employees will now compare notes and that a few questions will follow. This is manageable and even healthy. When someone asks why a colleague earns more, a confident answer grounded in your framework — scope, experience, performance — settles it. An evasive or defensive answer does the opposite and signals that the difference can't be justified. Train your managers to expect these conversations and to respond calmly and consistently rather than shutting them down, which is now unlawful anyway.

This is general information, not legal advice. Workplace law is detailed and the specifics of your obligations depend on your awards, agreements and circumstances — confirm the current position with the Fair Work Ombudsman or a qualified employment adviser before you act.

About the author

Andrew Northcott

Founder & Chairman, Valont

Andrew is the founder and chairman of Valont and the parent group Wattlestone. He has spent two decades building and running Australian SMEs, and writes about the realities of ownership — cash, people, systems, and the decisions that compound.

LinkedIn →

Want to know where your business stands?

Take our free Business Health Check — it takes 5 minutes and gives you a clear picture across finance, people, operations, and growth.