Christian Porter (Pearce, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Melbourne for his contribution. The government's position with respect to amendments (4) to (15) is that we are not inclined to support them. What these amendments would do, in effect, is extend the proposed franchisor holding company responsibilities to something that is described as 'indirectly responsible entities'. So the entity would have responsibility for an employer if the employer or an employee directly or indirectly supplied goods or services to the entity, or the entity has influence or control over the employer's affairs and that influence or control could include the conditions under which the work is done, the amount paid for the work done by employees or the employer or the way in which the employees are paid for work done by the employer.

The reason that the government opposes these amendments is that they must surely be recognised as regulatory overreach. There is certainly insufficient evidence at present to support very broad amendments of this type, which would have incredibly broad effects on the overall economy. The bill certainly addresses specific issues that have arisen in the context of defined business networks, like franchise businesses, for which a clear case for intervention has been made. The proposed amendments (4) to (15) are very broad, with almost all businesses transacting with many other businesses on a daily basis. It is simply not clear how far the proposed responsibility would extend or to how many other employers. We consider it very much the case that insufficient thought or consultation has been undertaken as to who will be impacted and what will be required.

Just looking at the amendments, to say that an entity would have responsibility for an employer if the entity directly or indirectly supplied goods or services seems to me to encompass such an incredibly broad and ill-defined range of circumstances that it would be almost unworkable as a matter of jurisprudence in practice. So these are not amendments that the government will be supporting.

Question negatived.

See this speech in context