Today in Parliament, Abigail supported the long-overdue modernisation of Chapter 6 of the Industrial Relations Act, strengthening protections for owner-drivers and gig economy transport workers. She praised the Transport Workers’ Union’s tireless campaign for fairer conditions and emphasised the importance of securing these rights at the state level to protect workers from future federal rollbacks.
Abigail said:
As The Greens' industrial relations and work health and safety spokesperson, I indicate our support for the bill, which will modernise chapter 6 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996. The bill has been a long time coming. I acknowledge and congratulate members of the Transport Workers' Union. A number of its members are in the gallery today to witness the passage of the bill through the Parliament. They have been calling for changes to the Act and for protection for their colleagues and comrades in the transport sector. The TWU has been relentless in its campaign for greater protections, not only for application-based gig workers like drivers and food delivery riders, but also for its members across the entire road transport industry.
The campaign for reforms to conditions in the transport industry has been prosecuted relentlessly for more than two decades, and it is testament to the power of that campaign that the TWU has won it twice over. First, in August last year changes were passed in the Federal Parliament to create a road transport division of the Fair Work Commission so that employee‑like workers are granted greater protections against predatory contracts, the right to lift standards across the industry and the ability to resist the race to the bottom led by exploitative employers. Second, with the passage of this bill, a 30‑year overdue update to chapter 6 of the Industrial Relations Act will provide protections for owner‑drivers and gig economy workers against the shonky and underhanded tactics of big companies.
The reform has been a long time coming. The campaign was waged on many fronts. It has been less than 10 years since food delivery apps were introduced in Australia, but in that time more than 15 workers have died and thousands more have been injured across the country. In 2020, in the span of three months, five food delivery drivers died on the roads in the course of their work—four of them on Sydney roads—as a result of the deadly pressure placed on them as they worked under the onerous conditions imposed by the technolibertarian applications that have swept across the nation and the world. The absence of basic entitlements like minimum wages and protection against unfair contract terminations drive workers to put themselves in harm's way simply to keep their jobs and make enough money to scrape by.
In March 2020 this House resolved to form a Select Committee on the Impact of Technological and Other Change on the Future of Work and Workers in New South Wales to examine, among other things, the impact the on‑demand or gig economy has had on the safety and prosperity of workers in the New South Wales economy. I recognise the now Treasurer for his instrumental role in the establishment of that inquiry. I recognise also my colleague, now Senator David Shoebridge, for the work he has done in this place, as well as in the Senate, where he assisted with the passage of the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Bill. I participated in the inquiry into the future of work and am confident that the expert submissions and evidence, and the recommendations that subsequently emerged from the inquiry, were instrumental in the formulation of the bill before the House.
The inquiry found that New South Wales had fallen behind in its regulation of the gig economy and that the failure to provide gig workers with a minimum wage, paid leave and other basic workplace entitlements was increasing inequality in New South Wales. It clearly identified the immense power imbalance faced by gig workers in their interactions and negotiations with on-demand platforms. It recommended the establishment of a tribunal or jurisdiction with the power to set minimum pay and conditions for gig workers, regardless of work status, and the extension of chapter 6 to include at least rideshare and food delivery workers, as well as those engaged to deliver bread, milk and cream. Those recommendations have been taken up as policy by The Greens, and we are very pleased that legislation is before the House today.
The Greens are also in favour of the establishment of a portable entitlements scheme for gig and other precarious workers, and the provision of full workers compensation benefits to on-demand platform workers that are equivalent to the level of benefits currently provided to employees injured in New South Wales workplaces. I look forward to supporting the inclusion of gig workers in the workers compensation regime when the Government eventually acts on that still-outstanding recommendation and commitment it made prior to the election. As the Treasurer would be aware, members are anxious to know the details of the foreshadowed changes to workers compensation that have been swirling around in recent weeks and months. Will the Government give an assurance that workers compensation coverage for gig workers is still a commitment, or has that fallen by the wayside?
Another highly relevant recommendation that emerged from the inquiry was for an urgent review of the grouping provisions in the Payroll Tax Act 2007 to ensure that on-demand platforms do not obtain an advantage over other businesses that do not trade in the gig economy. That is particularly relevant because Uber is before the courts, contesting an outstanding payroll tax bill of over $80 million. Uber is a notorious offender; it extracts astonishing levels of profit from the poorly regulated Australian economy. Uber Australia has been described as the "crown jewel" of the Uber group. A former food delivery executive described Australia as a "big profit centre for Uber Eats". In 2023 it was reported that Uber Australia's "collections" through a third party was $9.2 billion. That is the best proxy we have for the full size of spending on its platforms in the country. That money is funnelled through related companies and complicated tax structures.
Despite rideshare drivers and food delivery riders generating literally billions of dollars for Uber, Uber has been notable for its screeching and fearmongering about the prospects of regulation and being made to pay its fair share. This reform occurs in that context. It is no accident that we are describing this reform as a modernisation of chapter 6, because the law has fallen well behind the pace of change in the point to point transport and carriage sector. Over the past 10 years, gig platforms have driven an enormous upheaval of our society and economy. These companies and their investors have aggressively flooded our market. In Uber's case, that has meant undercutting the taxi industry to grab massive swathes of new customers. Its point of competitive advantage is its supposed innovative new model.
While using GPS and one's phone to place an order was certainly novel, it was not a transformation in the way things were done, and it does not warrant Uber's immense profits or its ability to disrupt entire industries. At the end of the day, we are still getting in a car to be driven somewhere or using a phone to order food from a restaurant and have it delivered. We could do those things in the 1980s. The real innovation that has led to the explosion of these companies is their innovation in corporate structure and employment model—their innovative new approach to sidestep workplace regulations. Their real engineering breakthrough was to artificially deem their workforce as contractors, not employees, while depriving them of all the agency that would typically accompany a genuine contractor arrangement.
Uber launched, illegally, in Australia in 2012. It did so in full knowledge of what it was doing. In fact, that strategy was pulled directly from the playbook it has replicated around the world to move fast and break things. Undercutting workers' rights is one of America's most significant cultural exports, and these companies have followed in a long and proud tradition. Stage two of this strategy states that after breaking into a market and undercutting existing stable operators, you then lobby to legalise your operations. That is exactly what they did here, to disastrous effect.
I was privileged to chair the inquiry into the operation of the Point to Point Transport (Taxis and Hire Vehicles) Act 2016, another parliamentary inquiry that identified the pressing need for reform of chapter 6 of the Industrial Relations Act. The tenacious Treasurer was on that inquiry as well. Relevant to the point to point transport industry is the system of bailment, which provides employment protections for taxi drivers but not rideshare drivers. The relationship between taxi drivers and taxi operators is governed under chapter 6, which applies to bailment and contracts of carriage. This legislation provides a "discrete regulatory regime for certain transport workers, who at law are not employees". During that inquiry the New South Wales Government told us in evidence that "rideshare drivers are unlikely to be covered by chapter 6" because of the way bailment is defined. And because rideshare drivers are not considered employees of their rideshare platforms, this means they do not have access to employee entitlements.
Fully aware of this, the former Government proceeded to welcome in these platform companies anyway, destroying the value of taxi licences while leaving rideshare drivers adrift in an industrial regime that granted them no power. The business model of these platforms is to fragment their workforce to degrade and undermine its power and ability to organise, therefore enabling them to exploit their workers and siphon off enormous profits. Because of the unfavourable working conditions, in many cases those who end up taking on this form of work are those workers already most vulnerable and prone to super exploitation, like migrant workers and young people.
It is for this reason that this bill specifies the matters that must be fulfilled in order for the commission to make a contract determination. The commission must not make a declaration unless it is satisfied it relates to persons who have low bargaining power, who receive remuneration at or below the rate of a comparable worker, who have a low degree of authority over the performance of their work, whose contract is or operates unfairly against them, or whose contract is otherwise considered unreasonable.
Read another way around, when all stakeholders and this Parliament agree that the functional effect of this bill will be to enable the commission to make determinations with regard to platform‑enabled transport and delivery workers on platforms like Uber, DiDi, Menulog, HungryPanda, it is a laundry list of the degradation of workers rights and conditions that have been imposed by these exploitative companies. This bill is stating that we recognise that these workers are subject to their collective power being consciously dispersed, their wages undercut, their agency undermined and their contractual terms made unfair and unreasonable, and that we want to bring these big companies to heel. I could not be happier to support this important initiative.
But while a lot of attention and discourse surrounding this legislation has rightly concentrated on platform‑based delivery drivers, it is not exclusively for those workers that this bill is relevant and it is not exclusively for those workers that the Transport Workers' Union has campaigned for so long. For owner drivers, these reforms will mean a lot. An owner driver is a small business that is highly dependent on a principal contractor for their ongoing work. It is not uncommon for an owner driver to operate more than one vehicle for the principal contractor, often at the request of the principal contractor. Yet under the current regime they lose access to chapter 6 if they do so, meaning they lose access to a minimum enforceable safety net and the right to challenge unfair termination of contract without onerous and burdensome litigation. This traps small operators and owner drivers in a relationship that stops them from being able to grow, build a little more buffer or provide employment opportunities to, often, family members or other relations. Alternatively, it forces them to expand against their will and in the process in fact undermine their own rights and entitlements.
This bill expands access to chapter 6 contract determination provisions to owner drivers with up to three vehicles. This better reflects the reality for these workers and is an important provision. Owner drivers in the transport industry are not as visible a class of workers in the public discourse as others, but they are some of the most precarious. They have been subject to profound contractual precarity as a result of their diminished bargaining power. This bill will seek to provide, in effect, access to unfair dismissal protections for those workers. So too have owner drivers faced uncertainty of contract through no fault of their own, seeing their livelihood thrown into the air and into disarray just because of a change in principal contractor. This bill will allow for transmission of business in relation to contract agreements, a simple matter that is extremely significant.
One of the reasons chapter 6 has been historically necessary—and is in need of reform and modernisation—is because of the distinct nature and construction of the road transport industry. It can be turtles all the way down, with layers upon layers of contractors. This reform allows for accessorial liability, which means liability right throughout the contractual chain. This means that no matter where you are within a contractual chain from top to bottom, determinations are able to be made that apply and all participants can be held accountable under those determinations. That is a vital reform that prevents tricky corporate structures designed to prevent access to justice for workers.
Finally, drivers will be able to recover toll costs incurred in performing their contracts. This might seem like a simple proposition, but its inclusion is significant and also representative. This matter was one prosecuted adeptly and effectively by the Transport Workers' Union in another inquiry I had the privilege to chair, the inquiry into road tolling regimes. During that inquiry we heard of how contract carriers or owner drivers face an unbearably high cost imposition by toll roads in the context of a highly competitive price‑taking industry. The terms contract carriers are engaged under are often set unilaterally, limiting their bargaining power, and too often the rate offered by principal contractors does not provide for cost recovery for toll expenses. The cost must then be borne by someone, and that someone is the driver. Due to the often unreasonable timing and scheduling expectations of these drivers, and because of the appalling state of our road network generally, it is not possible for those drivers to avoid the toll roads. This bill will provide for a fairer process where routes can be mutually agreed upon and, where necessary, toll costs can be recovered.
I saved this section for last as it ties together what is a remarkable campaign by the Transport Workers' Union and its supporters both within and outside of this Parliament over many, many years. That this House, and myself as chair of some of those inquiries, had the benefit of meeting with and learning from so many workers over the years as a case was built for these vital reforms tells a real story. It demonstrates tenacity and dedication. It demonstrates creative thinking and flexibility of approach. It demonstrates the undeniable necessity and legitimacy of this long overdue reform. I congratulate every person who has played a role in bringing it about.
I note here also the work of the Minister for Industrial Relations, Sophie Cotsis, and her team for their work on this bill. I am reliably informed that the bill has gone through an ungodly amount of revisions and amendments on its long journey to us today. There are some pretty significant changes from the exposure draft version of this bill that was exhibited for over a month online. The fact that this bill has landed in such a way that all parties are satisfied is a testament to the maturity of approach and legitimacy of the reform. I say all parties, but that's not quite true; the Australian Industry Group still is not happy about it. That should stand as the greatest endorsement of all as to why this is a good bill worthy of support.
I note the point of the Leader of the Opposition that these provisions are best dealt with federally. With a Federal election to be announced imminently, I think it is extraordinarily prudent for us to legislate a Dutton‑proof backstop. All members know that the first thing he will do is seek to tear up every industrial relations law advancement that has been achieved in the last few years. Let us take responsibility for the workers in our State and lock this in. I again congratulate everyone involved. I look forward to continuing this more open and constructive collaboration on the reforms that matter most to the working people of our State. We support the bill.
Read the debate in Hansard here.
27 March 2025