Stuart Henry (Hasluck, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Listening to the member for Oxley and, earlier, to his colleague the member for Throsby, there is no doubt the Independent Contractors Bill 2006 is a bill which goes to the heart of the political division in this country. This bill is about enshrining the rights of the individual to work under conditions of their own choice without governments or unions imposing limits and constraints on their freedom to contract—something that is opposed by the member for Oxley and his Labor Party colleagues.

This bill demonstrates the coalition’s commitment to freedom of choice in the workplace and that long-held Liberal ideal of encouraging entrepreneurship, self-reliance and self-sufficiency. I quote the Prime Minister from his first parliamentary speech:

... Australia built on deep respect for the individual ... The right to succeed, to accept responsibility, to work harder if they wish and to be rewarded for it. The individual’s success is the community’s success ...

To reiterate: the purpose of this bill is to preserve and guarantee for Australian workers the freedom to contract, the freedom to operate as a genuine independent contractor and the freedom to engage work through on-hire arrangements.

The Labor Party are not interested in freedom of choice, and this is demonstrated by their support for and by the union movement, where ‘no ticket, no start’ is the catchcry and workers do not even get to choose which union they join. More telling perhaps than coalition support for this bill is Labor’s opposition at the state and federal level, where they demonstrate their commitment only to the power, prestige and wealth of the union movement—not for the benefit of workers of this country; rather, for their own base political purposes.

Workers in Australia are voting with their feet. Australians are abandoning the union movement. There are now more independent contractors in our workforce than there are union members. This is a huge concern for the Labor Party. The good news for workers in our national economy is that people are choosing—in fact, they prefer—to work outside the traditional employment framework. This means that our labour force is more flexible, more responsive and better able to react to and satisfy the needs of consumers.

Independent contractors are an important part of our modern, dynamic Australian workforce. Trade unions, therefore the Labor Party, are fundamentally opposed to independent contractors, although I note that some unions have independent contractors as members, perhaps in opposition to their constitution. Independent contractors are not interested in joining unions. The unions have used any means possible, from industrial tactics to political manipulation of all too willing state Labor governments, to force independent contractors into the traditional industrial relations systems. I agree with Minister Andrews that the current complex and competing state and federal systems allow far too much interference by third parties in what are essentially private commercial business arrangements. We have already started moving towards this under Work Choices, which prevents federal awards and agreements from restricting the use of independent contractors or labour hire workers, for example preventing businesses from engaging workers outside award arrangements.

I read with particular interest the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations discussion paper on independent contracting which was put out last year, and I endorse much of what was said. It was pointed out in that paper that independent contracting arrangements have a very real benefit for contractors, employers and the economy as a whole, which include employment opportunities. Often a significant proportion of an employer’s total labour resources will not be required all the time. Contracting allows flexibility, it reduces the need for excessive overtime in busy periods and it reduces labour hoarding. Contracting can also give employers the flexibility to address processes more quickly, which provides greater scope for developing improved ways of doing things. It also allows for more flexible labour use, particularly where job descriptions have become fixed by excessive detail and rigidity. Contractors themselves can benefit from specialisation in particular areas and activities where an employer is not able to do so. Our economy is made more efficient and flexible when people are able to start up small businesses, to respond to rapidly emerging opportunities and to meet the demands of consumers more effectively.

I have a particular interest in this bill. My electorate of Hasluck is home to many independent contractors—hardworking individuals who have made the choice to work for themselves. They want the flexibility; they want the independence of being self-employed. I have received many representations from these constituents, who are very concerned to preserve and protect their rights as independent contractors. I spent nearly 20 years of my life representing businesspeople in the plumbing and painting industries—mainly self-employed workers who valued their independence and the flexibility offered through independent contracting arrangements. I know the value of these workers to our economy and in our community but, most importantly, I know that their choices and their freedom to operate as independent contractors should be respected and not overridden by Labor governments and unions.

I have worked for myself for a good part of my working life. I started my first contracting business as an 18-year-old in rural Australia and then I worked for many years in the building and construction industry. As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Workplace Relations and Workforce Participation, I was proud to contribute to the very detailed inquiry report Making it work, which was tabled in this place one year ago. Submissions were received from every state and territory, and I am pleased to see almost all the recommendations of the committee enshrined in the legislation before us today.

The Independent Contractors Bill seeks to enshrine in legislation the rights of individuals in this country to contract their services for payment without being deemed to be employees. It upholds the principle that independent contracting arrangements should be governed by commercial law, not industrial law. Why are the Labor Party so keen to summarily deem independent contractors to be employees? Why are they disregarding the rights and choices of so many Australian workers?

Independent contractors make up 28 per cent of the private sector workforce in Australia, or nearly two million workers. Labor have a particular interest in ensuring that this number does not grow and that the advantages of working as an independent contractor are reduced to nothing, because every worker who chooses to be an independent contractor is one fewer potential member for unions. The bill enables these people to be self-reliant and to not be reduced to a number—the lowest common denominator in a collective of mediocrity such as the union and labour movements in this country. Labor will do anything to help their union mates, including trampling over the rights and individual aspirations of Australian workers.

The Independent Contractors Bill 2006 and the Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Independent Contractors) Bill 2006 make use of constitutional heads of power—in particular, the corporations power—to override certain provisions of state legislation which restrict the use of independent contractors. This fulfils the Howard government’s promise, made prior to the 2004 election, to protect the right of individual independent contractors throughout Australia to enter into contracts of their choice, and to preserve independent contracting as a legitimate form of work.

For the information of the member for Hotham, these bills deliberately do not seek to define the terms ‘independent contractor’ and ‘employee’ other than to reaffirm that they should hold their common-law definitions. The common law has evolved over hundreds of years and has developed complex and exacting legal tests to identify and determine employment status. These tests take into account the entirety of an individual’s circumstances and cannot be meaningfully replicated in legislation.

See this speech in context