Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

The difficulty which we are now facing is that in both of those amendments which relate to the issue of independent contractors being effectively removed from the freedom of association protections for both employees and independent contractors—that is, the earlier parts of those amendments—the point is well made: the opposition are misguided and misinformed about what the true effect would be in respect of those. In relation to the second part, from amendment (13) onwards, it is always the case that I would urge caution when addressing these amendments in part, because of the unintended consequences that some of them may have. I have not had an opportunity to examine whether, if the second part were passed, that would have any implication for outworkers themselves, but we will work that through.

We would urge caution in respect of trying to split what are poorly drafted amendments which do not achieve anything and which, in fact, do the reverse and deal a blow to independent contractors on a number of fronts. It deals them a blow, firstly, in relation to removing their freedom of association and, secondly, in relation to amendment (13)—if I could call them more broadly those issues that relate to the prohibited content for agreements and terms restricting the use of independent contractors. The opposition in those amendments seeks to make unlawful in enterprise agreements any term that relates to the use or non-use of independent contractors. The point I make in relation to that is that it is clear a blanket restriction on the use of independent contractors could not be permitted, but there is a margin where independent contractors have a role in industrial relations. For example, terms could be included in an agreement relating to safety inductions, as I have said, for independent contractors or providing that an employer must not undercut employees’ terms and conditions through the use of independent contractors.

If we allow that amendment to get up we could allow employees in a workplace to be undercut by terms and conditions of independent contractors; alternatively, safety inductions for independent contractors may, in fact, not apply to a site or an enterprise. The amendments, in terms of dealing with concrete examples, have not been worked through and considered in detail. The examples that the opposition has put forward do not give me any comfort that they have worked through them to ensure (a) that there are no unintended consequences, (b) that independent contractors will not lose protections that they would otherwise have under the earlier amendments and (c) that, in respect of those latter amendments, they will not in fact be used to drive a wedge into enterprise-level negotiations or agreements that already exist between employees and employers. I indicated earlier that it could also impact on outworkers as well.

I urge the chamber not to accept the opposition’s position that they can cherry-pick through their amendments and try to garner support across the chamber for ones that they have not thought through in their entirety. I demonstrated that clearly at the outset with some of the examples I used regarding the freedom of association provisions and the provisions dealing with the terms of industrial instruments under amendment (13). There are holes in these opposition amendments that you could drive a bus through—amendments that they have copied down off the back of a submission. They have not relied on the ability to talk to independent contractors and see how they would be affected should these amendments get up. What I am concerned about is that we might see Independent senators seeking to agree with them in part because they might be minded to like that particular term but without understanding the consequences of what would happen in isolation. I ask this chamber to reject the opposition’s assertions and their amendments.