Ian Causley (Page, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Perth has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.

Sharon Grierson (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today as the representative of the people of Newcastle, a proud daughter of the working class, a former school principal and board director, and certainly a person who has at no time used a quota system to be a representative. The member for Indi perhaps needs some education. I rise to speak on the Independent Contractors Bill 2006 and the accompanying Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (Independent Contractors) Bill 2006. I oppose this legislation and I support the amendment moved by the member for Perth. The central philosophy behind this legislation is that the appropriate mechanism for regulating independent contractors is commercial law, rather than industrial law. This is consistent with the central philosophy behind the Howard government—that is, an individual worker has as much bargaining power as his or her employer. But that is just plain wrong and appallingly so.

This legislation is another attempt by the Howard government to remove another large group of Australian workers and put them outside the established industrial relations system which has served this nation well for 100 years. That is, of course, the system based on fairness and good faith in bargaining—a system in which everyone is seen as a stakeholder, and an important one, in work and productivity. Estimates do vary as to how many independent contractors we have in Australia, but it is seen to be anywhere between about 800,000 and two million people. So at least another 800,000 workers are being targeted for lower wages and fewer conditions by the Howard government.

For these workers, the Howard government’s legislation is an absolute betrayal. These are workers who are going out on their own, who are enterprising and who are making their living based on their own skills and resources. These are the people who, as the research keeps telling us, have been shifting their votes to John Howard, as they have shifted away from old-style industrial enterprises and large-scale employers. These independent contractors are now finding themselves totally betrayed by the Howard government, just as all the other workers in Australia who have been caught up in its other set of extreme industrial relations laws—Work Choices—have also been betrayed. They are betrayed through the government’s action to override protections provided by the state industrial relations systems, which the government did not replace with any appropriate protections under this federal system.

Firstly, the bill overrides all existing deeming provisions in state industrial law. These deeming provisions in my state, New South Wales, declare that certain categories of workers are defined as employees even though they may be independent contractors at common law. These workers include carpenters, cleaners, painters, outworkers, drivers, plumbers and many others. In many cases, their working arrangements are little different from those of ordinary employees. The state deeming laws recognise this and offer some of the rights and protections enjoyed by all other employees. But the Howard government has decided, in its treachery, that these workers do not need these protections. It has deemed that these workers should be left vulnerable, in unfair bargaining positions, and at risk of having their pay and conditions further downgraded. How do we know this? We know it because the Howard government has exempted some workers from its new laws.

The government has exempted textiles, clothing and footwear—TCF—outworkers and transport owner-drivers in New South Wales and Victoria. For these two groups of workers it has preserved existing protections. While this is very good news for the TCF outworkers and transport owner-drivers in New South Wales and Victoria, you have to ask: what about everybody else? Because in exempting these two categories of workers the minister has admitted that this legislation is definitely going to reduce the pay and conditions of all other independent contractors. To quote from the minister’s second reading speech:

These provisions in state legislation will remain, given the special circumstances of owner-drivers in having to operate within very tight business margins because of the large loans they have to take out to pay for their vehicles.

If this bill is not about reducing pay then why is the government and the minister worried about the tight margins of owner-drivers? If this bill is supposed to be doing something good for independent contractors, why, as the minister admits, will owner-drivers go broke if the bill is applied to them? This is not so much the exception proving the rule but the exemption absolutely proving the rule. It proves the rule that the Howard government is all about reducing the pay and conditions of hardworking Australians.

Do not get me wrong: I welcome this exemption for owner-drivers in my state, New South Wales. By them and for them it has been hard fought and well won. Their margins are tight. Petrol prices are at record highs. Interest rate rises add to their monthly loan repayments. Owner-drivers from my electorate have said that if they were exposed to the new laws they would simply be unable to provide for their families. They would have to spend dangerous amounts of time on the road. In the words of one: ‘We would get screwed.’

My electorate of Newcastle has some very distinct characteristics that make this bill very relevant to the people of Newcastle. Over the past decades Newcastle has faced major restructuring of industry as well as the closure of BHP. This has meant that with a tightening labour market, as we have seen, many Novocastrians have decided to create their own jobs and become independent contractors. Their sense of pride and self-worth is very important to them, and they have always resisted being a burden on government.

Earlier this year I met with several—about 30, in fact—owner-drivers in my electorate before they commenced work. I thank them for being there at that time, because it was an absolute pleasure to be there and to speak with them. It is true that they purchase their vehicles at great cost. They pay all their insurance and all their costs. They cover their own sick leave. They cover their workers compensation, holidays and super. They drive five or six—some even seven—days a week. Their wife or another family member is often their reserve driver or the person who does the accounts. When I spoke with them and heard their stories, I did ask about holidays and, sadly, no-one had had four weeks annual leave—they just could not afford it. I also asked about their superannuation, and it disturbed me to know that, with the margins the way they are, they certainly were not putting away the correct amount for their future.

Margins are indeed very tight and, yes, owner-drivers are already doing it tough. I am glad that they are exempt from this bill. I am also glad TCF outworkers, often some of the most disadvantaged and lowest paid people in our community, and many of whom are women, are exempted. However, the owner-driver provisions are set to be reviewed in 2007. That strikes terror into our hearts. It is fairly clear from the minister’s statement that he wants to see the drivers’ exemption cut. I fear there is little chance of the exemption for owner-drivers surviving beyond next year, with the minister already announcing what this review would be about:

... rationalising these laws and achieving national consistency if possible ...

And let us not forget: if, as the minister admits, this bill is bad news for these two groups of independent contractors, it is surely bad news for all independent contractors. It does not matter if you are a driver, a seamstress, an IT technician, a plasterer or a milkman—you have still got a mortgage, you have still got to fill up the car with fuel, you have still got to pay the interest on your loan and you have still got to feed and clothe the kids and pay for health care and education. You have also got to keep yourself fit for the job. You have got to cover sickness and time out if something goes wrong with your health or if something goes wrong with the tools and equipment you need to do your job.

Families are doing it tough, and the Howard government knows it. This legislation will make it tougher for the families of all independent contractors. Indeed, the other so-called protections offered to TCF outworkers will do little for them. The bill provides for a default minimum rate of pay to operate where an outworker is not guaranteed a minimum rate under state or territory law. This wage will be based on the minimum rate application under the minimum wages guarantee in that wonderful Australian Fair Pay and Conditions Standard. Remember, that is the minimum wage that has not risen in 18 months and which the government thinks is already too high. So that is not much of a guarantee for those people, is it?

The bill also ensures that independent contractors can no longer access state unfair contracts laws. It creates a new national unfair contracts regime. Matters will be heard in the Magistrates Court. That is very interesting, isn’t it? We read recently of a member of the minister’s staff being appointed to the Magistrates Court—just in time, apparently, but certainly an appointment that is being questioned by the profession. Moving to this new regime will create greater expense and lengthier and more complex arguments, and will expose independent contractors to costs orders. In addition, under the federal system there is no ability for employer organisations or unions to apply for unfair contract review on behalf of a party. This is a further step along the path of deregulating contract arrangements, and a further whittling away of the rights, protections and representations available to independent contractors. It also adds to the layers and layers of complexity the Howard government has built up in the industrial laws of this nation. It makes a mockery of one of the Howard government’s Work Choices slogans:

A simpler, fairer, national workplace relations system for Australia.

Remember that one? You would hope you would remember it, because I think the Howard government spent $1½ million of taxpayers’ money on market testing that slogan so that you might believe it.

Debate interrupted.