Wednesday, 11 May 2022

Motions

Non-employee transport workers

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (10:00): I move:

That this house:

(1) calls on the government to establish a tribunal comprised of industry experts to oversee all non-employee transport work and workers, regardless of label, in Victoria that will have the power to:

(a) set minimum and enforceable standards, including pay and conditions, across a company, sector or industry;

(b) enter into enforceable and certified collective agreements through a bargaining regime;

(c) resolve any disputes, including unfair terminations of contract, through conciliation and arbitration;

(d) review unfair contracts, including where the contracts become unfair in the course of operation;

(2) further calls on the government to:

(a) ensure that there is an adequate enforcement regime underpinning the work of the tribunal as well as appropriate auditing, training and education through the transport industry;

(b) require the tribunal to report back to the government on the exercise of its powers in its first 12 months of operation by no later than four months following the conclusion of the tribunal’s first 12 months of operation; and

(c) table the tribunal’s report in the Legislative Council.

Owner-drivers running small businesses off their trucks, vans, cars or bikes are the salt of the earth. They are everyday Australians, entrepreneurs and contributors to our society. Their jobs are based on a fair go. They have a vehicle, they are skilled at driving it, and they will do so for a reasonable fee to get passengers, food, medicine and parcels to the places where they need to be. The problem is Victoria is missing the regulation to make sure that a fair go applies to them. Unlike employee truckies, couriers or delivery riders, owner-drivers have next to no entitlements. This is a problem now more than ever.

Following the emergence of the gig economy, transport is an industry that has seen major changes over the last few years and certainly since I started driving professionally more than 30 years ago. I witnessed the years of hard work as we built up regulations to bring our taxi industry up to a reasonable standard. It was certainly not perfect, but it was far from the free-for-all we have got today. Things must change. The arrival of the gig economy giants like Uber and Amazon Flex have distorted the transport industry. They have hidden behind laws that were never written to capture this kind of work, and they have shifted the goalposts every time the law has tried to catch up.

In fact I have personally been affected by this. When Uber arrived, it slashed my income. I had to sell the family farm, and I am still dealing with the fallout of that. Yet I know that thousands of other families were worse off than me. I know that Uber drivers are struggling to make ends meet. I know that without regulation the future of transport is Amazon Flex, an arrangement that pays less than the minimum wage and sees drivers fired if they cannot deliver high volumes of parcels within a 4-hour window. This does not just affect workers in the gig economy. There is downward pressure on the transport industry, and our state is not prepared to protect its drivers.

Truck drivers were our lifeline during the pandemic. We recognised our reliance on them when driver shortages led to empty supermarket shelves. So what will become of us when they are forced to park up because they can no longer turn a profit? Victorian Autocare owner-drivers recently had to do just that. These workers are car carriers, transporting the Toyotas and Mitsubishis. With skyrocketing fuel costs and high inflation across the board, some of these drivers were making just $10 an hour after costs. Some are barely breaking even. Yet their company, their principal contractor, wanted to slash their pay even further—to just $1.65 a kilometre. It would have cost them more to work than it would to park up their trucks, so they switched off their engines for weeks. Thousands of cars were left stranded in the holding yard with no-one to carry them to the dealerships.

Striking is not the first option or the second option, it is the last option, because the bills do not strike with you. You will not get any solidarity from the banks. These owner-drivers had no choice. They had no choice because refusing to work was the only thing that they could do to stop their pay being further slashed. Last week those workers won. They achieved pay increases that will help them somewhat keep up with the rising fuel costs and the burdensome cost of living. They should not have had to struggle through weeks without work to achieve a reasonable outcome. No owner-driver should be without a guaranteed minimum rate.

Here is the clincher: there is a ready-made way to fix this. New South Wales has had legislation in place since 1996 that protects the pay, the conditions and the rights of owner-drivers. It is not perfect, particularly as it does not cover many workers in the gig economy or extend to all parts of the state, but it is a damn sight better than what we have. We have nothing in place to set enforceable minimum rates or conditions for drivers to keep them turning a profit. Chapter 6 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 in New South Wales sets minimum rates of pay for owner-drivers. Earlier this year it was extended to Amazon Flex, providing the first minimum rate for Amazon Flex drivers in the world. Chapter 6 has a mechanism to apply for rate increases to support cost recovery.

In April, the same month Autocare trucks were gathering dust in the parking bays, the New South Wales Industrial Relations Commission approved an increase to minimum rates so that owner-drivers could recover the price hike in fuel. What took weeks of strikes to resolve at Autocare took days to resolve in New South Wales, and workers there never had to sacrifice a day’s pay to achieve it. I commend the Autocare workers and their union, the Transport Workers Union, for their great win. In their honour, I think we owe it to the state to make sure that no owner-driver has to fight so hard and sacrifice so much just to receive fair pay again.

The Victorian government recently announced it would create fair conduct and accountability standards to help improve the bargaining position of owner-drivers, among other workers, before working on other platforms in the on-demand economy. As well intentioned as this legislation is, it again fatally misses the point. It adopts the same flawed approach at the heart of the Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Act 2017—no enforceability, no ability for workers to effectively collectively bargain and no effective solution to the pressures which these workers face.

Chapter 6 allows drivers to bargain for agreements rather than have rates unilaterally set or slashed on a whim. It allows for dispute resolution over issues like unfair termination, something that would come in extremely handy with the likes of Amazon Flex, Uber and Deliveroo. For a quarter of a century chapter 6 has been an incredibly useful tool in New South Wales, ensuring industry standards and fair competition. In 2022, with the erosion of rights we are seeing at a rapid pace, it is shameful that we have no system like this one in place in Victoria. Clearly we cannot wait for the commonwealth to act. We need our own robust system—an independent body to create legislated standards for all transport workers. We need regulation to kill off contractor loopholes that enable the exploitation of drivers and encourage this race to the bottom for pay and conditions.

Transport is a hardworking industry; I know that from experience. All these small business owners are asking for is the ability to make a fair living, and Autocare drivers are far from the only ones. In fact these companies are driven to these extreme measures because of a dog-eat-dog market with no safety net. The likes of Uber and Amazon Flex are driving standards into the ground and obliterating any sense of fair competition. Drivers in the gig economy do not even have basic working rights like a minimum wage, and they can be terminated from their jobs via an app, without even speaking to a person. They have no real way to appeal industrial disputes or unfair dismissal and they do not have proper access to workers compensation.

Take the case of Diego Franco, a young father and a Deliveroo rider, sacked with no warning or right of reply because Deliveroo said he was too slow. Last August Diego won an unfair dismissal case at the Fair Work Commission. Now he stands to have that decision overturned. That is because to win an unfair dismissal you first must prove that you are an employee. A recent High Court decision made it harder for Diego to make this case. And why should he have to? If the court finds that he was not an employee, does that mean he was wrongly sacked? Commissioner Cambridge described Diego’s sacking as ‘most notable for its absence of compassion’.

Workers like Diego deserve protections against cruel terminations, and they should not have to prove they are an employee to be treated with respect. Owner-drivers most often work for one principal contractor. When they have no rights or legal protections, they are at the whim of these companies. It is a lethal power imbalance that puts drivers in danger. When margins are tight, truck maintenance is the first thing to go. Then there is the pressure to work longer and harder and stay on the road well past the legal limits, and we know drivers fall asleep at the wheel.

We cannot afford to leave this crisis alone. Enforceable minimum standards would insulate the transport industry. They would give owner-drivers back the right to a fair go. They would promote healthy competition and keep owner-drivers in business. They would save lives on our roads. That is what we could achieve today, and we would be wrong not to do so.

Mr MELHEM (Western Metropolitan) (10:12): I also rise to speak on this motion. I want to commend Mr Barton on his motion and his commitment to the industry and improving standards in the transport sector. But can I just make this comment about this very issue, which I am passionate as well about because I think that workers, regardless of their status, should be entitled to a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work and to a safe work environment. We would not be here if it was not for the Turnbull government decision to abolish the federal Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. This is such good timing now, when we are less than two weeks away from the federal election. I want to just reflect on the Leader of the Opposition, Anthony Albanese. One of his key achievements as Minister for Infrastructure and Transport back in the days of the Rudd-Gillard government was establishing the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal, which regulated the industry. They did some terrific work until they saw their demise. That was established back in 2012 but saw its demise in 2016 when it handed down the decision in relation to minimum wages and entitlements. That was not acceptable to the coalition government back then, and their response to that was to actually abolish the tribunal. That was their response: abolish the tribunal. Years and years of work basically went down the drain. And the reasons for that work were that—Mr Barton outlined some of the difficulties faced by the transport industry—there was no proper regulation and the award system probably was not adequate to actually deal with it. That is why the federal Labor government established the tribunal.

I am referring to the federal system because back in 1990, people may recall, our industrial relations powers were transferred by the Kennett government at the time to the commonwealth, so the state of Victoria’s ability to regulate industrial relations is basically now limited; in fact it is zero. It is restricted to certain areas in the public sector. So a lot of the stuff Mr Barton is talking about—establishing a tribunal to determine wages and conditions and collective bargaining, which I totally support by the way—is somewhat prohibited because of the situation we are in. Having said that, what the Andrews Labor government has been doing over the last few years is actually a lot of work in that space to make sure that we do whatever we can within our jurisdiction to assist and help and address some of the issues Mr Barton talked about.

For example, we established the indicative rates for a range of owner-drivers in the transport industry, including the established mandatory rate for tip truck owner-drivers, and also under the Victorian Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Act 2005 hirers who engage an owner-driver for 30 days or more are required to provide the owner-driver with a rates and cost schedule relating to their vehicle et cetera. So we have established already with the industry and stakeholders that we are able to regulate some wages and conditions to cover the operating costs, provide a good return on the drivers’ labour and provide a good return for the owner-drivers’ investment, which is important. So that has been set.

We also went further. On government major projects, for example, where there are a lot of owner-drivers, whether they are excavator owners or truck drivers, it is now part of the contract that the principal contractor has to make sure they are giving fair compensation for their labour and their investment in their equipment. So that has been put in place. The minimum rates, for example, are based on the rates and cost schedule, and these rates apply to all tip truck owners that are engaged in government-funded projects, which I talked about earlier—so that is any project awarded on or after 27 August 2018. He effectiveness of the system, I think, has been demonstrated recently with the publication of the interim rates and cost schedule, which was developed in response to the significant increase in fuel prices as well as being updated to account for other costs. So what I am trying to illustrate here is that the system in that sector is working, but it is still a fair way from being perfect because there is a fair bit of work to actually do.

The other thing we talked about was the Uber drivers and the gig economy, and there is a fair bit of work that needs to happen in that space. We still have a long way to go. Can I just say that in the 2022–23 budget the Andrews government has committed funding for the provision of support services for on-demand workers, including advice in relation to their entitlements and work status, and for the administration of the fair conduct and accountability standards. As I said, there is a bit of work still to go there.

That is why it is important to note that there are certain things the state can do, but more work needs to be done at the federal level because they are the ones who control the whole landscape of industrial relations in this country. We cannot force employees to go and collectively bargain. I think that is the way to go for workers in order to improve their living standard—collective bargaining and enterprise agreements are the way to go—but that is governed by the workplace relations act which is controlled by the commonwealth. That does not mean we cannot continuously advocate to make sure these vulnerable workers in the transport sector are looked after. I think we all agree there is a fair bit of work that needs to be done in that space.

But also it is important to note the work the Andrews Labor government has been doing in the past eight years to gradually improve living standards and make sure these workers in the transport sector are being given a fair go. I think the work we have done here is probably second to none in comparison with the other states. I know Mr Barton talked about New South Wales, but I think all the stuff we have done in Victoria far exceeds what New South Wales have done—but there is more work to be done. I can talk about labour hire, for example. It is another area in which we have done a fair bit of work to make sure workers are being treated fairly.

One other thing in the time I have got left is, for example, the changes we have also made in relation to safety. One of the main drivers for the federal transport tribunal was actually safety. Safety was a big factor. And hourly rates was actually one of the drivers, because drivers are being asked to drive excessive hours to be able to feed their families and pay for the costs of their investment. A lot of people have lost their lives as a result, and also a lot of motorists have been killed as a result of that. So safety was the biggest issue. That was the first motivator—to address fatalities in the industry—and that led on to trying to address the underlying cause, which was wages.

As of 1 July 2020 one of the changes we made was that fatalities that occur on the road while working, suicides attributable to a workplace health and safety failure, deaths from industrial diseases such as silicosis and workplace deaths resulting from a criminal act will be recognised in the WorkSafe Victoria toll. These changes will mean Victorians will be entitled to WorkSafe family support services following the death of a loved one at work, and the broader reporting will bring increased focus on workplace health and safety issues. Now, it is important to make sure that road fatalities in the transport sector are counted as workplace-related deaths so we have more focus on that, because that is the main contributor to people losing their lives in all of these fatalities.

I will conclude by saying this: I want to commend Mr Barton again on his motion. A lot of good work has already been done and is underway in Victoria to address these issues. More work will be done hopefully with the election of an Albanese Labor government, so we can get the tribunal reinstated and re-established. I am not speaking on behalf of Mr Albanese, but I am sure that will be one of the things on his mind, and I am sure the Transport Workers Union will be advocating and lobbying and Mr Barton will be as well. I am somewhat optimistic that that will be back on the agenda. I am happy, for one, to call, in a personal capacity, for the re-establishment of that tribunal to make sure we have better regulations. Workers in the transport sector—all transport workers—should have a fair go to make sure they arrive home safely to their families, because they are entitled to that, and to make sure they have fair compensation. With these comments, I will leave my comments at that.

Mr ONDARCHIE (Northern Metropolitan) (10:22): I rise to speak to Mr Barton’s motion 742 today around the transport industry. Unlike my learned colleague Mr Melhem, I am not going to use the chamber today to rally the troops for the federal campaign; I am going to talk to Mr Barton’s motion instead. It is interesting that Mr Melhem today used this chamber just to promote the ALP’s chances at the federal election, but I will talk rather about Mr Barton’s motion here today.

Firstly, can I say to Mr Barton: good on you for bringing this to the chamber today to highlight the challenges of owner-operators, taxidrivers and Uber drivers, and indeed your own personal experience. Our transport workers are very hardworking people, particularly as we have been through a period in this state of being the world’s most locked-down city. People were doing most of their shopping online and ordering things, and our transport workers were running around busily every single day, dropping parcels and groceries and a range of things to people’s homes. In fact I remember, like most of us, at one point working from home. I watched a chap pull up outside my property and run all the way up to the house to deliver a box. I went to the front door and said, ‘How are you, mate?’, and he looked absolutely beat. This was only about 10.30 in the morning, so I have got no idea what time he started. He probably loaded his truck at about 3 o’clock in the morning and had been going ever since then. I said, ‘Would you like a glass of water? Would you like a Coke Zero or something?’, and he looked at me with this almost forlorn look on his face and said, ‘I would love something’. I gave him a bottle of water and a can of Coke Zero and off he went, hopefully to continue his day in a safe manner. We should recognise today how hard our transport workers work, not just in delivering parcels and groceries but in taxis and Ubers and in a range of things—Deliveroos. I saw someone on an electric scooter last night delivering a pizza. How he was able to balance riding that scooter and carrying a pizza surprised me.

We should thank Mr Barton for bringing this here today. His motion talks about establishing a tribunal comprised of industry experts. Respectfully, I say to Mr Barton: thank you for bringing this motion to the chamber today, but I have to say from a perspective of trying to bring this forward it is a little ill-defined in terms of exactly what you want here. I say that with all due respect, because when we talk about a tribunal looking to solve problems, I would have thought when it came to your own personal experiences around taxi operators and drivers we already had something in place in this state called the Taxi Services Commission.

Mr Barton interjected.

Mr ONDARCHIE: You will get a chance to rebut all this in your summing-up, I suspect, Mr Barton, so could you afford me the honour of just letting me continue for a moment? There are a number of steps that owner-operators can go through under the current regime in this state through the taxi services commission. I will not read all the steps that operators can take if they have a dispute, but they do include that if the parties are unable to reach a conclusion they can go to the Victorian small business commissioner. Indeed they can go to VCAT to solve this as well, so I just wonder why we would need to add another layer of an additional tribunal to the system as well.

I have to say, of those outside—not me, but those outside—who have read this motion, some of them have come to me and said, ‘This is a ‘job for Rod’ motion, after November. This is about getting Rod a job after November’. Now, I am not saying that, Mr Barton. I am not saying that. You might say it is a pretty good idea. I am not saying that, but people outside, people involved in the industry, have said, ‘This is just about Rod getting himself a job after November 2022’. It would be inappropriate for me to name them under parliamentary privilege, but I am sure you know some of them. But I do not suspect in total that is what this is about.

When it comes to this sort of matter, there was an inquiry done into Victoria’s on-demand workforce, which I know Mr Barton contributed to. He passionately wrote in his submission about his experiences and the fact that he has been a hire car driver and a commercial passenger vehicle business owner for over 30 years, and I have had the privilege—and I say that sincerely, the privilege—of listening to Mr Barton’s contributions around that matter and his own personal experiences in this chamber. So his passion in bringing this motion forward today has a lot to do with this personal experience, and I respect that.

Reading through the submissions to the on-demand workforce inquiry, which Mr Barton contributed to, can I just make a couple of points. One is from the Victorian Chamber of Commerce and Industry and reflects on Mr Barton’s desire to set up another tribunal in Victoria. It says:

The Victorian Chamber considers that the existing well-established test for determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor remains broadly fit for purpose. The regulatory framework works effectively to target those who … avoid their obligations in relation to pay and conditions under the Fair Work Act 2009.The consequences for breaching these provisions are already significant.

The VCCI submission then goes on to say:

As noted in the discussion paper, Victoria has referred … all its industrial relations powers to the Commonwealth. This means that subject to a few limited exceptions, Victorian workers and businesses are covered by federal industrial relations laws that are administered by the Federal regulator.

It goes on to say:

It is likely that a state-based response to the regulation of on-demand workers would face constitutional barriers based on inconsistency between state and commonwealth laws, on the basis that federal laws already ‘cover the field’.

It goes on to say, from VCCI:

State based regulation could also result in a fragmented regulatory approach with overlapping state and federal regulators.

…

If any new regulatory approach is proposed, it would make far more sense for this to occur at the federal level.

So said VCCI.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry also made a submission to the Victorian on-demand workforce inquiry. It said, and it relates to this motion:

… touching on areas where Federal legislation applies, as well as established principles from longstanding case law applying to employees and independent contractors nationally, the Inquiry is of interest to the Australian Chamber.

It does talk about, their submission, how there is no accepted definition of ‘on-demand’ or, as Mr Barton referred to it today, ‘gig economy’ workers. There is no definition of that, and it does talk about the limited number of those workers. But I have to say that, as things have moved on since 2019, I think there are a growing number of people involved in the gig economy. Its submission concludes with this:

In any case, the Australian Chamber submits that fragmented state-based approaches to the on-demand workforce would inevitably add further complexity to the system and cause difficulties with enforcement.

It does say:

… the … Chamber submits the Inquiry should approach any recommendations concerning Federal matters with caution. Any recommendations impacting Federal matters would need to be examined in their entirely—that is, nationally—and the full impacts … assessed.

So that goes to Mr Barton’s motion this morning about having another tribunal here in Victoria.

I would say to Mr Barton that, aside from the fact that people outside this place have suggested this motion has an ulterior motive, this is adding another layer. I still commend him for his passion and his energy to make sure our transport workers are looked after; I commend him for that. But I think adding another layer—and surprisingly, for once in the chamber I am agreeing with Mr Melhem on something—

Mr Bourman interjected.

Mr ONDARCHIE: It is a red-letter day. You are right, Mr Bourman, it is red-letter day. But I will quote Mr Melhem: ‘There are certain things the state can do’. And he also said, ‘But it must be done at the federal level apropos of the commonwealth Workplace Relations Act 1996’. I have to say to you, Mr Barton, good on you for your passion. Good on you for trying to ensure that owner-operators and those involved in the transport industry are looked after—so they should be. But legislation exists in this country to make sure they are looked after and there is a regime available to them to deal with matters that are before them and their concerns.

I am not sure that I agree with people that this is a motion just to ensure that Rod Barton gets a job after the November 2022 election; I am not sure I agree with them at all. But I do take some comments that have been fed back to me in the last 24 hours, and these have been fed back to me from outside. They were, ‘If Mr Barton had more passion for taxi operators during the debate around the pandemic bill, we would be more supportive of his position today’. Those are comments that have been brought to me from outside. There was another comment made to me—sent to me by text message actually, which I do not have in front of me—that read, ‘He sold us out during the pandemic bill. I wish he had given us as much care then as he has this motion today’.

This motion, whilst it has great passion about it, is overridden by federal legislation, and to paraphrase both VCCI and the ACCI, adding this complexity is just going to make it more difficult. I do commend Mr Barton for bringing this motion to the house, but the state opposition will not be supporting it today.

Dr KIEU (South Eastern Metropolitan) (10:32): I also rise to speak to motion 742 put up by Mr Barton. First of all I would like to recognise and commend Mr Barton for his interest in and passion for transport workers, particularly taxidrivers and also the gig economy workforce. Before I go into some of the details of the motion I would like to go through the history a little bit. In 2012, 10 years ago now, the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal was actually established by the Gillard Labor government. That tribunal also set the minimum pay rates for employees and contractor drivers in 2014 and 2016. The 2016 order also included a provision for hirers and supply chain participants to audit supply chain contracts. But sadly, only a few weeks after that order was handed out, the federal coalition government dissolved the tribunal and dissolved the order for the provision of minimum rates of pay. That was in 2016.

In 2021, just last year, there was a Senate committee report. The Senate Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee handed down a report with some reference to, among many other things, the importance of an enforceable minimum award rate and sustainable standards and conditions for all stakeholders in the road transport industry. Also the reference talked about efficient cost-recovery measures for industry stakeholders, including subcontractors. And what happened to that report? In response to that report in 2021 the Morrison government affirmed its intention to ‘never re-establish’ the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal or any ‘similar body that sets mandatory rates of pay for owner-drivers and small transport businesses’. So the Morrison government has emphatically rejected the recommendation of that Senate committee report to establish an independent body that would, among other things, be charged with setting universal mandatory rates for transport workers and ensuring that owner-drivers be paid for all the work done. The conclusion from that is that not only the federal coalition government but also those opposite do not care about workers and do not care about enshrining fair minimum standards for all workers.

Back to here in Victoria, we have new-style legislative powers to establish indicative rates for a range of owner-drivers in the transport industry and particularly for the tip truck owner-drivers—we have established mandatory rates for those drivers. That rates and costs schedule is designed to help industry participants understand the typical operating costs of an owner-driver business and assess whether an offer of work will, first of all, cover their operating costs and provide a good return for the driver’s labour and also a good return on the owner-driver’s investment in their time and money for the vehicles in operation. The obligations relating to rates and costs schedules are monitored and also enforced by the Wage Inspectorate Victoria. The schedules are set in consultation with industry and worker representatives who sit on the Transport Industry Council, which is a body that makes recommendations to the Minister for Industrial Relations.

Just a few words about the tip truck sector: we have the Tip Truck Code of Practice, which sets out best practice to follow when tip truck owner-drivers are engaged on building and construction sites in Victoria. In addition, whenever the work is carried out on Victorian government construction projects, the owner-drivers are entitled to minimum rates of pay. This was particularly developed in response to certain significant increases in fuel prices as well as being updated to account for all the variations in costs and price.

The Victorian laws also provide some pathways and venues for dispute resolution for owner-drivers in the transport industry. Under the Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Act 2005, hirers, owner-drivers and forestry contractors can contact the Victorian Small Business Commission to arrange fast and low-cost alternatives to dispute resolution. If that is not able to be done, then those disputes could be referred to VCAT.

In addition to all the above, the Victorian government has also committed to implementing its response to the inquiry into the Victorian on-demand workforce, which of course includes the setting of fair conduct and accountability standards. The standards are currently the subject of an ongoing consultation process with stakeholders from across the on-demand committee. As my colleague Mr Melhem has mentioned, in this year’s projects for the 2022–23 budget the Andrews Labor government has further committed funding to the provision of support services for on-demand workers, including advice in relation to their entitlements and work status and administration of the fair conduct and accountability standards.

So the Andrews Labor government is committed to ensuring Victorian workers are treated fairly and to tackling issues with job insecurity. In the transport sector we have demonstrated that commitment through our work in setting indicative rates and a cost schedule for owner-drivers, and by our commitment to supporting workers in the gig economy. We remain committed to these principles and to working with industry, with unions and with workers in the sector to further develop our work in the gig economy and to provide security, transparency, fairness and accountability to those in the transport industry.

Mr BOURMAN (Eastern Victoria) (10:40): I rise today to speak on Mr Barton’s motion that calls on this house to establish a tribunal comprised of industry experts to oversee all non-employee transport work and workers, regardless of label, in Victoria that will have a number of powers. It has been very enlightening listening to the contributions of the previous speakers, because we are hearing from here and there about how there is this done and that done and there is stuff happening and it is someone else’s fault. There are all sorts of things going on, but they all seem to miss the one problem that Mr Barton has identified: that it is not working. It blows my mind that it is now 2022 and we still have truck driving where it is cheaper to park your truck and not work than it is to work, or Uber drivers—in fact any of the gig economy drivers, whatever you want to call them—who are making so far under the minimum wage that I am not entirely sure how they do survive.

I think rather than casting aspersions about how someone voted on a bill previous to this and whether Mr Barton should have looked after it then, this is not about Mr Barton; this is about the people at the end of this. This is about the people that wake up and slave their guts out for untold numbers of hours for what most people would not go to work for. It is less than the dole. I think one of the things that any parliament in Australia should be doing is trying to get enough work for people so that there are the minimum people possible on unemployment benefits. There should not be people for whom it is actually easier—well, I should say it is actually more rewarding financially—to go on the dole. That this still happens is an indictment on governments at all levels, of all flavours.

What we have here is that Mr Barton wants a tribunal established that will set minimum and enforceable standards, including pay and conditions, which is fair. Getting told you are sacked via an app for being too slow—if you were an employee, you could not just be sacked like that. Then if you get a Fair Work hearing, that is not enforceable because you are not an employee. What that basically means is that the worker is a commodity in themselves, but they do not have the ability to set their own rates. People want to work, people want to earn a living, people want to make their way in the world. We should be doing the best we can to help them.

It was kind of mystifying listening to how basically this tribunal is not needed. Whether it is at a state level or a federal level, I will not get into that, because I do believe there is some validity in the comment that it should happen at a federal level. But if it is supposed to happen at a federal level and it is not happening, then we, being the Parliament of Victoria and the people of Victoria, need to start looking at what is going on. I will be supporting this motion. If nothing else, it is because I cannot believe that we still have people that will park their vehicles rather than work because it is cheaper. We have got enough problems with new vehicle deliveries in this country as it is. There are so many problems with COVID issues in the place where we are manufacturing integrated circuits. Vehicles that do come need to go somewhere, but if they are not going to pay people a decent rate to do their job, then I absolutely have no qualms with people doing that. I think it took a while to get there, but we need to really revisit this whole thing. We need to really look at this system because it is not working. It makes me sound like a unionist, and I can guarantee that I am not, but I have got to say one of the things I have always supported is a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay, and that clearly is not happening.

Mr MEDDICK (Western Victoria) (10:45): I am pleased to speak briefly in support of my crossbench colleague’s motion today, and I would like to thank Mr Barton for all the advocacy that he has done for transport workers in this place. This motion calls on the government to establish a tribunal comprised of industry experts to oversee all non-employee transport work and workers, regardless of label, in Victoria. It will have the power to set minimum and enforceable standards, including pay and conditions, across a company, sector or industry. It is absolutely incredible that we even must bring this to the Parliament and that it is not already in place. I take up some comments from other members—from Mr Ondarchie, stating that this is a federal responsibility, which is sort of followed on by Dr Kieu, saying that the Morrison government has no intention of doing such a thing. Well, if we put all of that together, what we have is nine years basically of inaction by the federal government and an admission from them that they have no desire to do anything—but also then handballing it during an election period to an incoming government perhaps of a different flavour so that it is their responsibility. What you have got in that space then is a complete abrogation of responsibility from all concerned at a federal level, so it is clear that there is no appetite.

That is a red flag for our state government to actually do something about it. They should be supporting Mr Barton’s motion, because if oppositional politics teaches us anything, that is exactly what they should be doing. If one side says no, the other side will say yes. That is how that works. And they should do it because all workers, regardless of industry, should have the right to enter into enforceable and certified collective agreements through a bargaining regime and resolve any disputes, including unfair terminations of contract, through conciliation and arbitration.

Establishing this tribunal will create a fairer and safer transport industry, which we know is under threat in this state. There are many challenges facing owner-drivers. Many of us engage with owner-drivers every day through food delivery, rideshare and courier services. We rely on them, but most of us would not know or understand the challenges that they face. Despite being nominally self-employed, owner-drivers are often subject to poor working and safety standards, owing to a lack of bargaining power. Just on that, how would we all feel if suddenly on a Saturday night when we have placed on an app an order for our favourite food delivery it never shows up? If all of those owner-drivers were suddenly to remove their labour from every single restaurant in Melbourne for 24 hours, there would be mayhem—absolute mayhem. People would not get their orders. People would be absolutely screaming at the restaurants. Maybe that is what they should do. Maybe that is what is needed—a bit of a show of force and of collective care for each other in trying to get a good outcome for themselves.

With few exceptions, owner-drivers are often entirely dependent on principal contractors and transport clients who unilaterally set the terms and conditions under which owner-drivers are engaged to perform that work. Disturbingly they are not provided legislative protections which apply to employees under the Fair Work Act 2009 and other industrial laws. The lack of legal protections combined with the poor bargaining position of owner-drivers too often creates exploitative and dangerous standards in the road transport industry. It can result in them not having the ability to recover costs. They delay maintenance on their vehicles. They speed, skip rest breaks and drive tired because they are just trying to earn a living.

Many of us know about the emergence of the gig economy and the challenges it has created. It has compounded the pressures placed on workers and businesses in the road transport industry. Reform is urgently needed or all of these problems will continue to worsen. It puts not just transport workers at risk but all Victorians who rely on them. What this motion calls for today is clearly sorely needed. We are a state that prides itself on our leading workers rights reforms, often going it alone on many issues to better the lives and safety of Victorian workers. No worker should be left behind. I am proud to support this motion today, and I call on all my colleagues in this place to do the same.

Ms SHING (Eastern Victoria) (10:51): Thank you for moving this motion today, Mr Barton, and for raising an issue which is of enormous importance to us as it relates to not just safe workplaces but a recognition of the value of work undertaken across the owner-drivers industry.

Mr Ondarchie interjected.

Ms SHING: It is unfortunate that Mr Ondarchie would seek to attribute an earlier comment that I made about the speaking order to a contribution being made in relation to this motion. I assure you, Mr Ondarchie, that I am looking forward to making a contribution with the time that I have available on the importance of safety in the workplace and in relation to the fact that vehicles are considered workplaces within the meaning of the Road Safety Act 1986 and within the meaning of legislative frameworks as they relate to safe workplaces and indeed the attendant obligations that exist for safety at work and those duties and obligations that exist at large.

Many years ago I worked as an adviser and then a senior adviser in the office of the Victorian workplace rights advocate, and in the course of that work by that office, set up as a statutory response to the worst of WorkChoices at a federal level, the Victorian jurisdiction looked very closely at the impact of a lack of safe rates and indeed a lack of a framework to protect and to provide a measure of fairness and a safety net to workers in this industry. The Owner Drivers and Forestry Contractors Act 2005 was a key part of this work. In recognising the importance of providing a safety net, we began a public discussion which polarised people around Australia. On the one hand we had discussions about productivity and efficiency, led at a federal level by former minister Kelly O’Dwyer, the subject of a review and the subject of a dismantling of a federal framework, and on the other hand we had repeated calls for an understanding of and a respect for the impact of unfair and unsafe terms and conditions of labour, whether undertaken under an employee arrangement or under the guise of independent contractors. Do not get me started on independent contractors, because I see I have only got about 7 minutes left on the clock.

But what I do know from years in the space of workplace relations—and understanding the nature by which Victoria’s referral of industrial relations powers to the commonwealth, at least within the private sector, operates—is that we are at the whims and the mercies of recharacterisation of modes of engagement that create fundamental unfairness, fundamental insecurity, fundamental unsafety and fundamental poverty, particularly within that independent contractor framework. From the very first case that went to the High Court in Hollis v. Vabu, whereby a bicycle courier was determined to be an independent contractor and therefore beyond the scope of redress following a collision, we have seen this issue time and time again become a political football to be used for improper purposes, to be used in fact to avoid, to circumnavigate, the actual issues that are at play here for people involved not just in this sector, not just in this industry but more broadly in the gig economy, which Mr Meddick spoke about earlier, right through to long haulage and to hire car operations within the state of Victoria. We need to do better.

When I worked at the Victorian workplace rights advocate I heard, as did that office, time and time again, as did the government, as did organisations such as JobWatch, from people who were unable to feed their families without going to unsafe levels in the work that they undertook to meet targets that were time based and did not allow for proper rest, did not allow for proper safety measures and indeed required a driver to traverse in many cases the width of Australia before turning around and coming right back again.

We have put in place a measure of protective mechanisms that sit alongside an ongoing commitment within Labor governments to a fair safety net of terms and conditions of employment. This has also extended to the way in which independent contracting arrangements have operated. It has also extended in this term of government to the way in which labour hire and contracting arrangements are covered within the scope of the workplace safety framework that we have, and that is a credit to the work done in this place and beyond as far as health, safety and occupational health and safety are concerned. Not only do we have the work which has been driven by Minister Stitt in place around labour hire, we also have industrial manslaughter laws. We also have the capacity to reach into wrongdoing as it might emanate from a denial of fair and safe terms and conditions of engagement to make it abundantly clear that a failure to provide a safe workplace and an exposure to unreasonable risks and a negligence which flows from that can satisfy the requirements of the tests set out in legislation which effects industrial manslaughter.

We have just had International Workers Memorial Day. We have just seen, as we do every year, dozens of pairs of shoes set out in a symbolic recognition of those who have lost their lives, who deserved to come home safe but did not. And we know the statistics are crystal clear: in sectors such as mining, agriculture and indeed on-road work fatalities are at their highest. We know that more needs to be done, and we know that in fact these responsibilities go on at a state level to the best extent possible within the legal framework that we have in our capacity to reach into a referred power of industrial relations functions under the corporations power of the constitution.

These are steps that we will continue to take. This is work which will go on to the best extent that we are able to reach into it and to provide regulation. And this will be in the face of the federal government’s dismantling of the road safety tribunal, work led by Ms Jenny Acton, former vice-president of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, now the Fair Work Commission, to understand the impact of a lack of a fair safety net of terms and conditions of engagement. That work was significant, it was far reaching, and it was dismantled. It was pulled apart. That safety net was removed by a commonwealth government, a coalition commonwealth government—the Turnbull government in fact—which was wilfully blind to the importance of providing safe workplace terms and conditions where they might be considered to be eclipsed by the importance of productivity, efficiency and the benefit of businesses.

There had to be a better way. Those in Canberra shirked their responsibilities and turned a blind eye to the importance of workplace safety for these operators of heavy haulage and of vehicles in any manner of different circumstances, and we have seen the consequences of that negligence. The way in which the dozens of boots are lined up in recognition of workers and lives lost, where these people had a right to come home safe and sound to their families, is in part because of a failure by governments to reflect the need for safe and fair workplace terms and conditions in the way in which regulatory systems operate.

This motion raises important considerations that I understand Mr Barton continues to prosecute, and prosecute well, which is his job and indeed his obligation, and indeed crystal clear from his inaugural speech as being the absolute priority for him as it relates to the stakeholders who are relying upon him to be a conduit for their priorities and their concerns. I am looking forward to that work continuing to happen. I am looking forward to continuing to hear from Mr Barton about the way in which changes to the regulatory and legal landscape continue to evolve, and I am hoping that Mr Barton and indeed the people he represents—the stakeholders and the communities and the interest groups—can understand and recognise that it has been the Andrews Labor government that has delivered the best possible suite of safety and fair work conditions and remuneration to people in these vulnerable situations, to people who deserve better. No amount of trying to squeeze the coalition’s square peg into the round hole of workplace fairness will make it a fact that workers in these industries, these sectors, and indeed their families, do not deserve more and deserve better. On that basis I thank Mr Barton for moving this motion before the house today.

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (11:01): I will be brief. I am not going to start off by giving Mr Barton a little pat on the head, as a number of other speakers have done. In what will probably come as no surprise to anyone in the chamber, we do not like what Mr Barton has proposed this morning. I would prefer that he was not having a go, as others have described it. This motion seeks to increase regulation and turn a category of small business people into employees. It will stifle entrepreneurship and innovation, push up costs and make the Victorian economy a little slower, stiffer and less flexible. It is already slow, stiff and inflexible, but this will make it just a little bit worse.

The motion lumps together a number of different types of workers, from rideshare drivers to truck owner-operators. We know that Mr Barton is not a fan of the deregulation of the commercial passenger vehicle market, but the Victorian public are. Anything that moves us back to what is the bad old days of high costs and poor service would be a retrograde step. Owner-drivers of trucks do not exist in an unregulated sector of the economy. They are already very well regulated—many would suggest over-regulated. The Victorian economy does not need this tribunal. Owner-drivers do not need this tribunal. Mr Barton is not a fan of the free market, but we are. The market will solve the problems that this motion identifies. If owner-operators do not think they are well enough paid, they will remove themselves from the market and find something else to do. That is what small business people do. While at one end of the market some may have significant amounts of capital invested, no-one guarantees small business people a profit. They invest their money, and they take their chances trying to earn a profit. As people leave the sector, the supply will drop and the returns to those who remain will increase. Efficient allocation of capital is what the market does best. For the individuals involved this can be unfortunate, but for our society as a whole it drives prosperity and growth. We want more flexibility, not less. The Liberal Democrats do not support this motion.

Ms TERPSTRA (Eastern Metropolitan) (11:04): I rise to also speak on this motion 742 standing in Mr Barton’s name. Despite Mr Quilty’s quite nasty imputation that we are patting Mr Barton on the head—or rubbing your belly or whatever it is—when I stand here and say I do want to thank him for bringing this motion, it is actually because I mean it. It is quite patronising to characterise the government contributions on this motion in any other way. It is a sad reflection on you, Mr Quilty. I do acknowledge Mr Barton’s strong, continued and consistent advocacy for drivers. His party, the Transport Matters Party, is all things transport. It is often a tough job to be a passionate advocate in this space. It is not an easy space to operate in, so I do want to thank Mr Barton for his continued advocacy on this matter.

These are matters that are important to a number of members on the government benches. I will just talk about his motion for a moment on the specifics, but clearly these go to a number of things in regard to industrial relations. Having worked in the union movement for many, many decades, I fundamentally understand why he is bringing this motion to the house: because these matters are incredibly important to workers who work in this sector—owner-drivers, truck drivers and the like.

Obviously one of the things that has spurred on a lot of these issues being brought for discussion is the recent decision in ZG Operations v. Jamsek, which went all the way to the High Court. It is significant in the sense that this High Court decision has turned on its head the very case that Ms Shing mentioned, Hollis v. Vabu, and how workers who were working in this space could be determined as independent contractors or not. This has now been replaced with a multifactorial test. If you look at this case and you look at some of the commentary by academics and trade unionists and the like in this space, it has actually been met with surprise and dismay because it has literally turned on its head the test that has been applied for many, many years in regard to independent contractors. What it effectively says is the contract is king.

The problem with contracts being king in this space is that it completely disregards and fails to recognise the lack of bargaining power between an employer and an employee, and that is why unions represent employees in this space—so that they can help them with gaining the appropriate bargaining power to equal out the imbalance. I note that Mr Quilty talked about market power and all the rest of it. Well, markets fail too. Markets do not always deliver the best outcomes, and markets do leave people behind. That is why unions work to represent members—to equal out that lack of bargaining power. For the High Court to turn on its head Hollis v. Vabu and to replace the contracting test with this multifactorial test is concerning to trade unionists and workers who work in this sector.

I might turn to talking about a movie, and I know it is an odd pivot to talk about a movie. I encourage everyone in this chamber and those who might be playing along at home to watch this movie, because this is where we are headed. This is a race to the bottom. There is a movie that was directed by Ken Loach, and it is called Sorry We Missed You. That movie depicts a man who bought himself a van to become a delivery driver. I note that Mr Barton in his contribution talked about the Amazons of the world. This man became a delivery driver, an independent contractor. His wife was working as a personal care assistant. She sold her car, which she used for her business, so that he could buy a van and become an independent contractor. What the movie depicts is the standard of living for that family becoming incredibly strained. The driver worked so many hours he fell asleep at the wheel and had an accident. He then had no money to repair and replace his van. What was placed upon him as an independent contractor was an incredible burden—that he had to deliver so many parcels per hour. It was physically and humanly impossible to do.

It is appalling. We are in a race to the bottom; there is no doubt about that. So when we talk about markets, it is offensive to hear the contribution made by Mr Quilty when workers are having the ability to equalise the power imbalance taken away from them with the decisions that have been delivered in Jamsek, not having the ability to join their union and have their union bargain for them at the bargaining table. These are very real problems. Workers do not have the ability to equalise that bargaining imbalance, the power imbalance. I understand why Mr Barton is bringing this motion for all the reasons I just spoke about. I encourage everyone in this chamber and everyone who might be watching along at home to go and watch that movie, because it is terrible to think that this is exactly where we are headed.

I draw on the comments and what Ms Shing’s contribution was about as well. Principally at the heart of this legislation we are talking about industrial relations. Victoria referred its industrial relations powers to the commonwealth thanks to Premier Kennett, and that happened a long time ago. So there are constraints around what can actually happen in this space for us, but it does not take away from the fact that what is happening in the transport sector means that people’s lives are at risk. People are entitled to go to work, and their families are entitled to have that worker return home safely. It is unacceptable that people who are drivers will be faced with the situation where they must drive ridiculous hours without having appropriate breaks, all to meet ridiculous targets placed upon them. We have seen this before. From my previous role as a union official, I very well remember the strong campaigns that were run by the Transport Workers Union in this space. National truck drivers—I think Ms Shing talked about it before—were driving from Sydney to Melbourne, but there was constant pressure to, rather than stop and have breaks, get back in that truck and continue to drive. Those days, I thought, were behind us, but here we are again.

The attacks on workers from conservative governments never end. They never end. It is all in the name of profit. That is why it is offensive to hear about market solutions, because markets do not care about workers. If you could, you would have robots driving trucks; you would have unmanned trucks. That is really what you want. But the bottom line is that we have seen how important truck drivers and other workers in this sector are. In particular COVID exposed those fault lines. Look what happened when workers were no longer able to work because they were sick with COVID or because they needed to isolate. We saw what happened. It beggars belief to me that we have to sit here and listen to these sorts of comments about the market when we know what is going to happen. We have seen these things happen before. It is not an unknown quantity. These things are a known quantity.

Again, I know there has been a lot of good work done in this space. I note that in the previous contribution Ms Shing talked about the tribunal that was set up. I know Jennifer Acton was heading up the Road Safety Remuneration Tribunal. That was one of the first things the coalition government got rid of. That would have continued to do great work in this space, but sadly that was taken away from that industry, the ability to reform and continue to work on why we need good rates of pay and why we need appropriate safety standards.

You know, I actually have a light rigid truck drivers licence, believe it or not. I can drive a bus. I will tell you one thing: when I have driven a bus that is over 16 tonnes, it does not stop very quickly. It takes a long time to pull up sometimes. If you are driving on a road and you are driving at the speed limit and you fall asleep and you suddenly wake up realising that you need to brake pretty heavily and quickly and you are driving something that is over 16 tonnes, or between 8 and 16 tonnes, you know that the car that is in front of you is not going to fare so well. These are all things that we need to take note of. These are all things that we need to balance out when we talk about markets. These are people that are behind the wheel of trucks. They are entitled to go home to their families at the end of a day’s work. Their families are entitled to have them go home in one piece without the prospect of injury or serious accident or even death. It is unacceptable. Again I commend you, Mr Barton, for bringing this motion to the house today.

Ms PATTEN (Northern Metropolitan) (11:13): I rise to speak just briefly on Mr Barton’s motion. It is sensible. Mr Barton and I did not come to fisticuffs, but we possibly did not see eye to eye in the last term when I introduced the Ridesharing Bill 2016, which was about recognising ridesharing, recognising that we needed to do something about that emerging part of the industry and recognising that it needed to be regulated. In doing so it was not great for the taxi industry, and I understand that, but it has been really wonderful to see how Mr Barton has been able to represent and advocate for the industry and is now seeing the industry as a whole. This motion goes to the fact that it is not just the taxi industry, it is the whole industry. It is all of those contractors. Whether they are driving an Uber or a DiDi, whether they are driving for Amazon or whether they are driving for Menulog or whoever they may be contracted to, they need the same protections.

Last week I was at the memorial for workers who have died, and it is one of the most moving memorials that you can ever witness, where you watch in silence as shoes are placed on stools in memory of each person who has died in a workplace accident. Those numbers are going to grow because—and it seems remarkable that we have not done it before—we did not actually count road accidents in workplace deaths up until quite recently, so we are now seeing that. We are now seeing the people that Mr Barton is working to protect through this motion being reflected in that memorial. Now their shoes are on a stool to be remembered, and if we do not do something, we will just keep having to put more shoes on more stools.

We need to introduce ways to protect that emerging cohort of workers. You know, this is not reinventing the wheel. This is not doing something that is out there. This is not doing something that is actually all that unusual. In fact New South Wales has done it. From both sides of the house it gets bipartisan support. For some reason I am hearing people in this chamber saying that we do not need it—that we have got adequate protections. We do not. We do not have adequate protections. In fact we have very few protections for these workers, and we certainly need to be able to set minimum standards.

The minimum wage at the moment is $20.30 or something. I suspect that many of those delivery people would dream about getting the minimum wage. They would dream about it. They do not have even the basic minimum working conditions that most workers just assume would never be taken away from them. Quite rightly we are arguing for increases on the minimum wage, but here we are talking about workers who do not even have the privilege of being able to call to receive the minimum wage, do not have the privilege to be able to call to have proper meal breaks to ensure that they can work safely. We call them subcontractors, and I think the gig economy is changing the way we work. It is changing, and there is no point trying to put our head in the sand to say that it is not happening. It is changing, so our regulations and our enforcement have to reflect that.

I guess from my perspective, I draw on what we are doing with sex work. We have decriminalised sex work, but that is actually about providing greater protections to those workers who are self-employed. That is about the government recognising that those workers, even though they are self-employed or they may be subcontractors, need protection. They need workplace health and safety regulations and requirements to protect them and the people that they may work with. Drivers are no different. Drivers need that protection, and there should be a body to ensure that that happens.

We heard Ms Terpstra and Ms Shing speak about the various court cases on this, but I think we should also be really turning to what we have seen in New South Wales—what they have been able to do in setting minimum rates for some of these workers and what they have been able to do in setting work conditions which will improve the safety outcomes. You know, we see those ads about the reason we have these rules. It is so that people do not just work safely, they come home safely—they come home through that door. It is those ads you see on television about someone coming home to their family that really get to the point of our regulations in this community. And if we are a modern society, then we must be extending those protections, extending those rights, to all workers.

I think Mr Barton is being progressive in this motion, in recognising that this economy is here to stay. The technological revolution will change the way we work and will change the relationship between employers and employees. It is changing, and that is, probably sadly for some, inevitable. But introducing a tribunal such as this will provide a voice, will provide a really balanced voice, and it will be able to establish those protections so we are not seeing more shoes on stools at our memorials.

Mr GEPP (Northern Victoria) (11:20): I am very pleased to rise to speak on Mr Barton’s motion, and I also congratulate Mr Barton for bringing this motion to the house. We have had many conversations about the gig economy and how it is now influencing so many aspects of workers’ lives here in Victoria, across the nation and indeed across the world. Mr Barton would not be bringing this sort of motion to the house if the current system was supporting those workers. It is clearly not.

Ms Terpstra said most of what I would have said in relation to the contribution from Mr Quilty in the Liberal Democratic Party, but just to add my 5 cents worth to that contribution: if the LDP think that this is just about regulation, they need to read what is in the motion. They need to understand the issues, because it is far deeper than that. It is about, fundamentally—and Ms Shing is right—industrial relations: a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay and having a system that supports that. But indeed the motion goes further than that and it talks about the safety of workers and the importance of the safety of workers and the right of everybody in our economy, regardless of the work that they do, to go home at the end of their working day, whatever that is, in whatever circumstances that might be—and I remind Acting President Melhem about phones in the chamber. It is a very important set of issues that Mr Barton does bring to the chamber.

I have worked in industrial relations for most of my working life. We have seen over many, many decades changes to the working environment, not always for the better. Here in Victoria there was a lot of disappointment in areas that I worked in back in the early 1990s when Mr Kennett handed over the industrial relations powers from this state to the commonwealth. What we saw systematically and what we have seen systematically since then is an erosion of workers’ bargaining power, an erosion of their rights and an erosion of their safety at work. Some people will say, ‘Well, he’s an ex-union official. He’s just going to say, “Union power has reduced”’. Of course it has, because after Mr Kennett handed over those powers to the commonwealth, to Mr Howard, what was the first thing that Mr Howard kept telling the people of Australia? It was that unions are bad—‘Unions are bad. They’re horrible people, they’re nasty people, they’re terrible people. They shouldn’t be trusted’. And yet today in 2022 the people who earn the most wages in this country are unionised workers. We have repeatedly had conservative governments in this state and federally and in other jurisdictions around this nation telling people that unions are bad, but just have a look at the reality of the situation.

Unions are not bad. Unions do unapologetically fight for better wages and better conditions for working people—and all strength to their arm and long may that continue because it is so important. It is so important that there are champions in the industrial relations system who do advocate for better wages and who do advocate for safer work practices, particularly in the area of transport. We have seen over the last few years this industry just explode in terms of the number of people that now participate in the transport sector. It is enormous, whether it is Uber rideshare or Uber Eats or many of the others—Menulog, all of these other players that now exist in the market. Of course what we see and what we hear are some pretty ordinary things about the conditions that those people work under. Indeed we hear often from the Transport Workers Union, even in the more unionised and regulated parts of the transport sector, that we still have some very, very unscrupulous and very ordinary work practices that are imposed upon people with the threat of, ‘If you don’t do it, then we’ll get somebody to replace you. Somebody else will do it, and the choice is yours’.

Mr Quilty would remember back in the days when we were in the tax office together some of the early challenges that we had as workers in the tax office when the commonwealth government were looking to offshore or outsource our work—the introduction of these overseas call centres to replace the work that we were doing—and the disputes that we would have been involved in back in those days. It is all part of the same set of circumstances—that is, where we are seeing the growth of insecure work across many industries, particularly the transport sector through the gig economy, and the challenges that they face. I could stand up here for the next 4 hours and talk about this because this is a great passion of mine, but I know that in the time remaining Mr Barton has a lot to respond to from previous speakers. I am sure that most of what I have said has probably already been said, so what I am going to now do is sit down and finish my contribution to enable Mr Barton to at least have a few minutes to sum up.

Mr BARTON (Eastern Metropolitan) (11:27): I do want to reflect on a few of the things that have been said. It is clear—it is absolutely clear—that those opposed to this motion have never been in the position of these workers. They have no idea. This is a very serious issue, and we take it very seriously. Quite frankly, Mr Ondarchie’s patronising response to me did not do anybody any favours, because I just want to tell you how many people this would affect. It is not a few thousand people, it is not tens of thousands of people, but hundreds of thousands of transport workers and their families who would be better off if we had this tribunal. This is a challenge. We can blame the feds, but nothing is ever written in stone. There is always a way we can change things.

I just want to back Ms Terpstra and Mr Gepp about the union movement. I have to say it has been my failing over the years that I have not been able to organise the taxi industry, because I reckon if we had organised that taxi industry we would still own our licences and we would be in a much better place. I urge everybody to support workers, support them today. This is a line in the sand. Who is going to support small businesses? We talk about small businesses; let us see it. Let us see who is going to support small businesses in the transport sector.

Motion agreed to.