Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation) Share this | Hansard source

He is no relative of the honourable senator. I am not aware of the John Murray circumstance that was described to us by Senator Wong. From time to time I think it is not all that helpful to try to personalise these things. However, I would have thought that you cannot unilaterally cancel a contractual arrangement, but, of course, if it comes up for renewal or reconsideration then that is one of those things that contractors have to face. We make no bones about the fact that, when you enter into contractual arrangements, like any contract there are the advantages and, yes, there are the disadvantages. That is what people have to weigh up in their minds before they enter into these arrangements.

Whilst Labor and the Democrats are in support of these amendments, I do seek to separate out or quarantine the Democrats in relation to what I am about to say. The Labor Party clearly want to see as many people as possible classified as employees as opposed to independent contractors. I think most people around Australia would be surprised to know that, in New South Wales, the Labor government deems the following to be employees: carpenters, joiners, bricklayers, plumbers, drainers, plasterers, ready-mix concrete drivers and others prescribed by regulation. The Labor Party clearly want fewer and fewer independent contractors and more and more employees, and of course we know the reasons and the rationale for that. That is their trade union background. It is their right, but of course—as I think Senator Murray quite rightly said—this is a genuine contest of ideals and beliefs. The government approaches this on the basis that that which has been developed by the common law over many years is a good way to go. The common law is relatively settled in this area.

I simply say to Senator Murray: you legislate and put it down in black on white; lawyers and courts will nevertheless still argue about the interpretation, the meaning and the breadth and width. Just in recent times we had that sort of discussion within the Australian community about the highest piece of legislation in this country, if I can call it that—that is, the Australian Constitution—and the breadth of the corporations power in relation to the Work Choices legislation. Well may you put it in black on white—you will have even the High Court splitting amongst itself five to two as to what a provision actually means.

So, with great respect to the honourable senator and the Democrats, I do not think that the legislative provisions that are being suggested will necessarily provide the certainty that the Democrats hope for. Albeit that I accept and understand that the motivation is to create that certainty, I just do not share the Democrats’ faith in legislation. I think Senator Murray and I have exchanged views on that from time to time in this chamber, where I—possibly uncharitably—accused the Democrats of immediately thinking, whenever they see a problem, that legislation is the means to fix it, whereas we do not necessarily take that legislative approach. But that is a difference in styles, a difference in philosophy. I indicate, as I did earlier, that the government opposes Senator Murray’s amendments.