Nick Xenophon (SA, Nick Xenophon Team) Share this | Hansard source

I can indicate that I and my colleagues cannot support these amendments moved by Senator Cameron. We understand his concerns, but these amendments, in their scope, are incredibly broad. It is something that is being looked at by Professor Allan Fels, in terms of migrant workers and other vulnerable workers, and I have great confidence that Professor Allan Fels will be thorough and diligent and do the right thing, in terms of coming up with sensible recommendations to further protect vulnerable workers.

The problem I have with these amendments is that they are so broad, so imprecise, that they will cause litigation chaos in the small-business community and amongst subcontractors. They will have economy-wide effects. For instance, and this is not a criticism of the intent or the good intentions that Senator Cameron has in relation to this, the wording which refers to a person having 'influence or control over the worker’s affairs or the affairs of the worker’s employer'—incredibly wide, incredibly imprecise. The amendment makes reference to the worker otherwise forming part of the conduct of the undertaking of the person. To unpack that, from a drafting point of view, is so problematic. I believe that this amendment needs to be looked at appropriately. Professor Allan Fels ought to look at some of the issues raised here, and this has to be deferred to another time. There already is quite a robust framework of protections in this legislation. Let's make sure that the perfect is not the enemy of the good. I am concerned that the impact on small businesses and on subcontractors could be devastating. I believe that this will be revisited down the track.

We cannot support this amendment, but I would like to get some indication from the minister, further to discussions that have occurred in the chamber in the course of this debate, that there will be an independent review of these clauses and the sorts of issues, in terms of reverse onus, as to the effectiveness the bill. The minister has said that the coercive powers don't go far enough and that they should be all-encompassing. For that issue and for all the issues that have been fairly raised in the bill, can the minister indicate that there will be an independent review once this bill has been in operation for 12 months so that we can then have a thorough, comprehensive independent review? Will she undertake to consult with the opposition and the crossbenches as to the scope of that review so that we can have some idea that it will be something that is robust and well-regarded?