Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

We will not be withdrawing our amendments and we believe that there is a very strong argument to continue to pursue them. You always know when the minister in this debate is struggling to find an argument because he takes a little visit to the graveyard and kicks around the corpse of Work Choices to try to strengthen his argument. But the simple fact is the opposition are looking forward. It is very interesting that the minister should suggest that, somehow, our amendments are reaching back into the graveyard to a corpse. I would be very interested, and I know it is a very busy time trying to get around all the amendments, if Senator Siewert and other honourable senators could listen to this:

National policy for protection of workers in an employment relationship should not interfere with true civil and commercial relationships, while at the same time ensuring that individuals in an employment relationship have the protection they are due.

I could nearly do a ‘who said it’ on this one. And another ‘who said it’ states:

Self-employment and independent work based on commercial and civil contractual arrangements are by definition beyond the scope of the employment relationship.

Was that John Howard’s Work Choices? No. It was Senator Ludwig and Senator Siewert’s beloved ILO in resolutions of 2003 and 2006. Even the International Labour Organisation as recently as a few years ago said it is vitally important—they can see the sense in this—to separate out independent contractors from the employment relationship. By Senator Ludwig deliberately using the ruse that independent contracts somehow need protection of the industrial relations regime, he is by implication putting them into that regime and involving them in industrial relations law when even his beloved International Labour Organisation—and it is not often that I am reduced to quoting them—contradicts him. Senator Siewert, if we were to pass the amendment that you suggested earlier that we should give effect to—not just consider but give effect to—ILO recommendations in this legislation, there would not be that sort of reference to independent contractors. Even the ILO says that that is a sensible way forward.

Senator Ludwig spins the argument that independent contractors need this protection and that protection and it is all about helping independent contractors. Guess what? Independent contractors submitted to the Senate Standing Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations committee that they did not want Senator Ludwig’s protection. They specifically submitted that they did not want to be entangled in this regime—and that is why we are moving these amendments.

As I said at the outset, the three benchmarks for us in considering this legislation were its effect on jobs, its effect on small business and whether it delivered excessive union power. What we are seeking to do here is to ensure that the small business independent contractor sector is disentangled from the regime, which will see it become more and more entangled if the current clauses are allowed to stand. So in support of independent contractors and in support of small business I commend the amendments to the Senate.