Workers compensation—gig economy

MS TOUGH (Brindabella) (4.30): I move:

That this Assembly:

(1) Notes that:

(a) allworkersdeservetobesafeatworkandhaveaccesstoproperworkers’ compensation, including rehabilitation, if they are injured at work regardless of what industry they work in or how they are engaged to perform that work;

(b) the gig economy, orthe platform economy, has grown substantially over the last decade with over 100 platforms operating in Australia, the most common being in transport and food delivery, however it can cover anything from cleaning, disability support, and home maintenance. Slightly over one percent of employed people are engaged in digital platform work according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics;

(c) gig work is characterised by engagement in short-term paid tasks performed through an online app matching supply and demand for the task. The work is often undertaken by vulnerable workers, including migrants and students, who have low bargaining power, low income by comparison to award wages, and limited employment conditions;

(d) workers’ compensation is compulsory for all employers for their workers, however working arrangements with digital platforms mean that a gig worker is generally not employed directly by the platform owner but is treated like an independent contractor;

(e) The Fair Work Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024 (Cwth)

amendedtheFairWorkAct2009(Cwth)toempowertheFairWorkCommission to set minimum standards for “employee-like” workers, such as gig economy workers, however this does not extend to workplace health and safety coverage; and

(f) workplace health and safety legislation, compensation, is the responsibility of each jurisdiction;

including

workers’

(2) Further notes that:

(a) during the 2010s there was a harmonisation process across most jurisdictions for workplace health and safety, including the ACT. This expanded coverage of workplace health and safety laws beyond employees to include many contractors who worked for a “person conducting a business undertaking” (PCBU);

(b) Safe Work Australia has expressed that given the changes to the status of gig workers under the Fair Work Act, each jurisdiction should explore extending coverage of workers’ compensation to gig workers;

(c) workers’ compensation schemes vary significantly between jurisdictions however in 2023, Safe Work Australia members agreed to develop a national approach to workers’ compensation for gig workers although progress appears to be slow across the country; and

(d) Queensland began a process to extend workers’ compensation coverage to gig workers in 2023, including with legislative reform; and

(3) Calls on the Government to:

(a) investigate the expansion of workers’ compensation to gig workers in the ACT through expanding the existing private sector scheme, creating a specific gig economy scheme, or another more suitable option to ensure gig workers are not disadvantaged compared to other private sector workers in the ACT;

(b) work with other jurisdictions to explore a consistent approach to the coverage of gig workers in each workers’ compensation scheme; and

(c) Report backto the Assemblyon progress bythe last sitting week of 2026.

Everyone deserves to be safe at work. It does not matter what job a person does, what industry a person works in, or who a person works for, everyone should be safe. And when people are injured at work, they deserve to be protected, but a growing number of workers in Australia do not have these protections available to them. I am talking about gig workers.

The gig economy—also known as the digital platform economy, share economy or on-demand work—represents a growing segment of the workforce that operates through over 100 different digital platforms connecting individuals to short-term, flexible work opportunities. Here in Canberra, many of us rely on services provided by workers within the gig economy, who offer a broad spectrum of services, from ridesharing and food delivery to personal care, home maintenance and a range of other task-based or freelance jobs that cater to the immediate needs of consumers. Who in this chamber can say that they have never used a digital platform for a service, whether it be Uber, Uber Eats, Airtasker, DoorDash, or even delivery partners linked to supermarkets and other retailers?

Gig work can provide a vital source of income, offering flexibility that allows people to balance work with personal, family or educational commitments. For some, gig work is essential for meeting living expenses, supplementing their income or bridging gaps during career transitions or periods between jobs. For others, it serves to supplement a primary income or enable an individual to build a career around their interests or passions by facilitating freelance work. According to the ABS, in 2023 the proportion of people reporting engagement with digital platform work was just under one per cent of the employed population, and while this may be a small share of the workforce, for many it represents a crucial source of income and opportunity, and these workers deserve the same protections and safeguards afforded to other members of the workforce.

As of late 2022, there were over 2,000 rideshare vehicles in the ACT compared to 266 registered taxis. That is more than 2,000 working drivers on the road in the ACT not entitled to the safety net entitlements that all workers deserve, relying on limited private or platform-provided insurance, while taxi drivers have access to workers compensation. These drivers face considerable personal and financial vulnerability as a result, with little protection against the consequences of accidents, injuries or other risks inherent in their work. While they are likely to have access to motor accident insurance in the event of a crash, this does not work in the same way as workers compensation.

Now, that is only one aspect of the gig economy but this is repeated over and over in so many parts of it. Gig economy workers are already vulnerable workers. They have low pay; little, if any, entitlements because of limited bargaining power; and if the app they are working through will not let them log on that day, they simply have no work that day. Gig economy workers are also often migrants and students—already vulnerable cohorts of workers.

That bringsmetothequestion:what isworkers compensation?AccordingtoSafeWork Australia, workers compensation is a form of insurance which provides support to workers injured at work. It can include one-off lump sum payments, income replacement, and medical and rehabilitation expenses. Each state and the Commonwealth have different schemes and different coverage, but all employers must have workers compensation insurance for their workers, and all are underpinned by the notion that people injured at work should be cared for, have their wages covered and be helped back into the workforce.

Are gig economy workers employees? Unfortunately, gig economy workers are usually engaged as independent contractors, not employees, meaning the platforms are not considered employers and are not required to have workers compensation insurance. Amendments to the Fair Work Act last year, through the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024, established, at a national level, a process for the Fair Work Commission to develop minimum employment standards for “employee-like” workers like those in the gig economy, ensuring basic entitlements such as pay and leave.

While these reforms indicate a significant step towards addressing unfair working conditions, the Fair Work Act does not regulate workplace health and safety or workers compensation, but the reforms do signal a need to do more to recognise and protect

these workers. Safe Work Australia, a Commonwealth agency that works with states and territories, unions and employers to develop national policy relating to workplace health and safety and workers compensation, has asked the states and territories to explore ways to expand workers compensation coverage to gig economy workers and to try and take a consistent approach across the country.

I know there is some nervousness about extending workers compensation and how it would work in practice, and I acknowledge that. It is why my motion is calling on the ACTgovernment to investigatetheexpansionofworkers compensationtogigeconomy workers. I have suggested a couple of mechanisms, such as expanding the current private sector scheme or creating a specific one for gig workers, making sure they are not disadvantaged from other private sector workers. But I acknowledge this is not the easiest thing to do, so I trust the government and the hardworking public servants who get tasked with this, to explore the options, look at what is happening in other jurisdictions, look at the changes to the Fair Work Act and the process going on in the Fair Work Commission, and work out the best path forward to protect gig economy workers.

Queensland, for example, has started down the path of expanding workers compensation to parts of the gig economy workforce, and I spent a considerable part of my weekend doing deep dives into the complexities of what is going on in Queensland, reading papers, reviewing what has happened and ways forward in Queensland, and what I can say is that it is quite technical. But there is work being done out there, and there is a path forward for gig economy workers to have access to workers compensation.

On a different note, you might be thinking, “Ms Tough worked for workers compensation plaintiff lawyers in the past. She’s here to get more compensation for workers compensation lawyers.” But, no, that experience working alongside injured workers every day taught metheimportanceof workers compensationtoinjuredpeople and their families. Imagine you are at work doing your job and you get injured. Maybe you are in construction and you injure you back and cannot lift anything; or you are a truck driver, and you break your leg in a crash and can no longer drive; or you are an office worker being severely bullied until one day you cannot get out of bed. These are things that happen to real people, and the consequences are real for them and their families.

Imagine you have been injured in one of these situations, but you have workers compensation and you know that your wages are going to be paid, your medical bills are going to be covered, you have a rehab plan and a back-to-work plan to start getting your life back on track, and that there might be a lump sum payment at the end of the claim. Insurers are not always the workers’ best friend. They will often do everything they can to get out of having to pay a claim, and sometimes you need a lawyer to advocate and help you navigate the system.

I have seen an injured worker whose insurer was withholding medical expenses so a person could not access physio, which meant they could not heal, which meant they could not get back to work, which meant they could not pay their bills. This places immense mental pressure on a person and their family when they should be able to recover and return to work. And for those people who are injured and will never return

to work or never return to a job that allows them to earn their full potential, workers compensation lump sum payments can be there to acknowledge this and make sure a person is okay, into the future.

I have sat on the phone with crying people who are in pain and just want to get better so they can be there for their kids, to enjoy a holiday and buy nice Christmas presents for the family. I have spoken to their partners about the juggle of going to work, getting their partner to treatment, and raising a family. I have talked clients through going to appointments with insurance doctors and been there for them afterwards, while they cry on the phone about the experience. But I have also seen the sheer relief on their faces when they are able to get back to work or they get a lump sum payment and they can move on with their life and get back to what they were doing—and that is with workers compensation coverage.

Now imagine that you are a food delivery driver and you come off your bike or you are aridesharedriverand you areinjuredinacrashorbyapassenger,oradisabilitysupport worker engaged through a digital platform and you injure your back helping a client to get dressed in the morning. Maybe you are lucky and your platform has some form of personal injury or income protection insurance, or maybe you are in a financial position where you were able to obtain it yourself, so your income is going to be covered for a bit. Maybe some medical bills are covered for a bit if you are lucky. But who is there making sure you get the treatment you need, making sure you get back on track and get back to work, making sure there is money to pay the bills, money to pay the rent or the mortgage, and money to put food on the table?

It should not be luck of the draw if there is a basic kind of insurance through a digital platform. Just like otherworkers, gig economy workers have the right to be safe at work and the right to be supported if they are injured, which is why it is so important workers compensation is extended to cover them.

Enforcing workers being paid properly, having their entitlements, and being covered by workers compensation, is good for employers and good for business, too. It puts businesses on a level playing field. It stops one business undercutting another by skimping on their obligations. Just recently, the Assembly had a whole committee inquiry into the cost of insurance for business, but it did not consider the cost of being undercut by operators who do not have employees but get out of their obligations through dodgy independent contractor arrangements.

I just want to finish by saying that Iknow there is an amendment coming to this motion, and I reserve my right to speak on that either during the debate or in closing. I want to thank Ms Clay and her office for engaging in good faith on these motions and to Mr Cocks and his office, too, for discussions on them yesterday and today. But I briefly want to add that we have just had a committee inquiry into the cost of insurance for businesses here in the ACT. It was a committee made up of representatives from across every group in this chamber—the only one with representatives from every group. I think it is the biggest committee in this place. That was an inquiry that considered the issues raised in the amendment through the terms of reference. The inquiry made 21 recommendations about the cost of insurance, including workers compensation, for business and community organisations in the ACT, which the government has to respond to.

So, when considering the amendment on the table, consider this: what is the purpose of the motion that I have brought today? Is it a catch-all omnibus of workers compensation, or is it about extending workers compensation to a small number of vulnerable workers in our community who deserve to be safe at work? Is it about the cost for some businesses to operate with their current premiums, or is it giving access to a small number of workers so that if they are injured they can pay their bills and be supported back to work? Is it about sectors who have access to the private workers compensation market and the countless providers that are there, or is it about expanding the scheme to cover those who currently do not have access at all? Is it about something that is just been considered by a committee and that the government is currently working on a response to, or is this a separate issue about equity and making sure that everyone who goes to work is safe and if something happens to them, they are looked after? I commend my motion.

MS LEE (Kurrajong) (4.42): I thank Ms Tough for bringing this motion regarding gig economy workers and their access to workers compensation, and I rise to speak on behalf of Mr Cocks. The Canberra Liberals will be supporting this motion, not because we are convinced by the government’s track record on these matters, not because we believe the way forward is clear, but because all workers deserve to be protected and this issue is one that deserves proper consideration.

If this Assembly is serious about supporting vulnerable workers, then we must engage in an evidence based, nationally consistent conversation about what that support should look like. There is no denying that the gig economy has grown substantially over the past decade. More than 100 platforms operate nationally, and here in the ACT we know gig work is increasingly present in food delivery, rideshare, cleaning and support services. Often the people doing this work are students, migrants and low-income workers doing what they can to earn a living. And when they are injured, the safety net is not always there.

That is a problem. But, as always, the solution must be carefully designed, because we are talking about not just a change to an insurance scheme, but about redefining the boundary between employment and contractor status, and that is no small thing. Whilst we are supporting this motion today, let us be clear that any future legislation will have to overcome some very real concern if it is to secure the support of the Canberra Liberals.

So let us talk about those concerns. The first concern is about clarity of definition. The term “gig worker” is broad and evolving. In this motion that we have seen from Ms Tough, reference is made to “platform work” and “employee-like workers”, yet there is still clearly ambiguity that needs to be addressed. If legislation is brought forward, we need to see clear definitions of who is covered and, just as importantly, who is not covered. Because without precision we risk creating more confusion than clarity.

The second concern is about the potential overlap with recent Commonwealth reforms. The Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act 2024 already creates a new category of employee-like workers. It makes little sense for the ACT to legislate in parallel without understanding how these national reforms are landing in

practice. If the Commonwealth is building asafety net, we need to know where the gaps are before we try to fill them.

The third concern is about how coverage will be triggered. Is it when a worker logs onto the app, accepts a job, completes a task? What happens if they are logged on to threeappsatonce?Thesearenothypotheticalquestions;theseareoperationalquestions that any compensation scheme must answer with clarity, fairness and enforceability. Without that we risk seeing administrative errors and disputes skyrocketing.

The fourth concern—and this cannot be overstated—is about who pays. Will it be the platform? Will it betheworker? Will it besubsidisedthroughthe existingprivatesector compensation scheme? In Queensland a staged funding approach is being explored, but it remains unclear whether that will work in other jurisdictions. Here in the ACT we already have the most expensive workers’ compensation premiums in the country. Any new burden placed on that scheme risks further increasing premiums for all employers, undermining business confidence and cost competitiveness. We will not support a new measure that raises premiums on local businesses without ironclad modelling and proper safeguards, nor during a cost-of-living crisis do we want to see a cost burden for the consumer.

We raise these concerns not as roadblocks but as reminders—reminders that good intentions are not enough; reminders that if we are going to legislate in this space, we have a duty to get it right. That means consulting widely with workers, platforms, businesses and insurers. It means waiting for the national approach, being led by Safe Work Australia, to mature. It means aligning the ACT model with the national framework and definitions to avoid duplication, confusion or costs blowouts.

This motion does not seek to legislate today. It does seek to investigate. It does seek to understand whether there is a workable, sustainable way to protect workers who, as things stand, are falling through the cracks, and this is worth supporting. But let us be clear: any bill that comes forward will, of course, face a higher bar, and we will not support a patchwork or politically motivated solution that does more harm than good, because getting this wrong would not just be bad policy; it would be bad for the very people this motion seeks to help.

In closing, we support this motion because every worker deserves dignity and safety, whether they are on payroll or on the platform, and we urge the government to proceed with caution. Let us not jump the gun on national reform; let us not create complexity where clarity is needed; and let us not place further cost pressures on local employers without fully understanding the impact.

MS CLAY (Ginninderra) (4.48): I would like to speak to Ms Tough’s motion. The Greens will support Ms Tough’s motion. I thank her for her deep and genuine commitment to the field and the care she has brought to this area. I also thank Ms Lee for her carefully considered comments on this issue. I move the amendment circulated in my name:

After paragraph (3)(b), insert:

“(c) review other sectors struggling to pay for workers compensation premiums, including the arts and frontline community services, and consider

what support government can provide for workers and to ensure sustainability of services for Canberrans;”.

The amendment that I have put forward is fairly simple. It is that, along with Ms Tough’s motion, the government should also review other sectors struggling to pay for workers compensation premiums, including the arts and frontline community services, and consider what support the government can provide for workers to ensure sustainability of services for Canberrans.

We have been told so much by the arts sector and frontline community services, so it strikes us as a massively wasted opportunity to look at workers compensation at this point and not also look at workers compensation for them. We know that we have systemic issues across the board regarding insurance. Workers compensation is one of those insurances. We have quite a lot of information about this. My amendment is a really simple amendment to make sure that the government looks at the rest of the picture.

The ACT Legislative Assembly’s inquiry into insurance costs in the ACT received some pretty concerning evidence. It noted significantly higher public liability insurance and workers compensation costs across many industries in Canberra—in particular, the arts and creative sectors and our frontline crisis services. The arts sector is struggling. A submission from the ACT’s art centres noted there has been a reported 50 per cent increase in premiums on workers compensation that varied from 13 per cent up to 205 per cent. That does not include public liability costs, which also skyrocketed.

For our young and emerging artists, public liability insurance is a luxury not everyone can afford, and so is workers compensationinsurance.Thekickeris that they needthese insurances if they are going to perform. How are our artists meant to perform, build their career and refine their skills if we have set them up in a system that blocks them from doing that?

We understand that, particularly in the arts sector, there is intersectionality of gig workers. In our creative sector, a lot of artists and creatives are working in gig economy platforms and in real-world venues. They are often using online apps. Also, they are often working in non-digital ways. The government will have to consider that intersectionality for our creatives in the arts sector, because they are already working in all of those fields.

We have also recently heard pretty distressing news that our community sector is in crisis. I love the way this motion begins. It begins with a broad value statement, and it sounds like we all agree with it: “all workers deserve to be safe at work and have access to proper workers compensation”. Ms Tough did such an articulate job of explaining what happens when people are locked out of that. It is so important. But that statement applies to more than just digital gig economy workers, as defined in a piece of legislation at the moment.

It is not a great idea for the government to narrow their focus so narrowly and to cut out so many of the workers that we have just been told in this parliament are struggling. The one that comes to mind most quickly for me is the Domestic Violence Crisis Service. They gave us evidence that their workers compensation insurance has been the

most significant cost increase in their organisation. Their premiums have increased 450 per cent since pre-COVID premiums. For context, the increase that they are funding could pay for more than three full-time frontline crisis workers. It could assist hundreds of women and children in Canberra each year. They told us that they are cutting services so that they can pay theirpremiums.Ifthegovernment askthequestion, there is a pretty good chance that they will find out that a lot of our frontline services in the community sector are in the same position.

DVCS noted their increased cost of insurance is a threat to their long-term viability. They said they need to leave positions vacant or, in some cases, remove them from the service entirely. They said that, in the last 12 months, they have had no choice but to remove two management-level roles and three positions from the crisis intervention team to reduce their costs. This is an obvious risk for our community. We cannot let critical frontline services fail when they are the ones who are helping Canberrans. To let them fail because they cannot afford the workers compensation premiums is an unacceptable situation. These are trusted services that the community wants and needs to provide life-saving support.

We also need to consider the psychosocial hazards of the people working in these frontline crisis and emergency response services. Just like domestic, family and sexual violence, homelessness and mental health responses, the people who work in these services are exposed to high levels of risk, burnout and psychosocial hazards, so we really need to make sure that, when we look at this issue, we also look at how it is impacting our frontline community services.

I note that the government at the last sitting chose to underwrite the dying horse racing industry through a government insurance scheme. That scheme comes into effect today, so it is clear to us that the Labor government can make fairly quick decisions if they choose to. They have chosen to do so for one particular industry. It is great that they look at workers compensation premiums and access to insurance for another industry today, but it is unacceptable to continue to look at tiny pockets of need and pick favourites when we are being told, in parliamentary committee inquiries, about the needs across many of Canberra’s crisis services.

I am pleased to say that it looks like the amendment has general support. We expect that this amendment will pass today. We will certainly vote for Ms Tough’s motion. I am looking forward to seeing some really good, targeted information from government and some really good solutions coming forward to help all of our sectors that are really struggling with this issue.

MR PETTERSSON (Yerrabi—Minister for Business, Arts and Creative Industries, Minister for Children, Youth and Families, Minister for Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Skills, Training and Industrial Relations) (4.55): I rise to speak in support ofMs Tough’smotion. Iacknowledgehercontinuedadvocacyfortherights anddignity of workers in the ACT.

The ACT government recognises that everyone has the right to be safe in their work and, if injured, to be provided dignity and support in their recovery. This is a commitment we are proud to make. We recognise, however, that the nature of work continues to evolve and that we must ensure our laws continue to uphold this

commitment. The rise of gig economy apps is a key example of this. Gig work apps have surged in the last decade, especially since the pandemic. Hundreds of app based platforms are now operating in Australia across a wide array of industries. Most commonly, and as most would be familiar with, this has been through ride share and food delivery apps. There are apps for everything, from cleaning to disability support, home maintenance and career services, and there is even an app to find someone to walk your dog.

As the prevalence of these platforms grows, our approach to the people who are engaged with them needs to evolve. Questions of whether someone is a worker or a contractor become unclear, especially in situations where the person engaged has limited to no control over the work they do. Take the example of two people delivering a pizza. One is engaged directly by a pizza chain as a casual employee. The other is an independentcontractorthroughanapp.Botharedrivingthesamekindofcar,delivering the same kind of food and are following predetermined instructions on when and where they are going. Both can work the hours that suit them and both can quit the work at any time, yet, in the event of a workplace injury, one of them can expect their wages to be supported, medical bills to be met and to be assisted in returning to the workforce— the one engaged with the pizza chain. The other has an unclear pathway, with questions around who their legal engager is, who they can turn to for support, and what kind of insurance protections they may have. This is a challenge that governments must now grapple with: the creation of two approaches to injuries arising in work.

I am proud to say that the ACT has endorsed Safe Work Australia’s proposed national policy approach to workers compensation and the gig economy. Recognising the complexity of the problem we are faced with, Safe Work Australia has developed five principles to guide the response. I would like to touch briefly on the first two principles as I believe these are most central to Ms Tough’s motion. The first and most fundamental principle is that the emergence of digital labour platforms has changed how some people are engaged to undertake work. This has resulted in fewer protections in the event they sustain an injury or illness at work. This is the critical point of Ms Tough’s motion and the issue we are facing. These people are in an employment-like relationship with diminished protections, have low income compared to award wages and have limited ability to meaningfully influence the work they do. It is a cohort that, if injured, will have a materially different experience to another worker, yet they do not engage in materially different work. We must consider carefully how we can ensure that, when someone is in this situation, they receive the appropriate protections.

The second principle is that workers compensation should be considered for gig workers engaged on digital labour platforms. Each jurisdiction operates a workers compensationschemethatisdifferentyetaimstoachievethesameoutcome: supporting injured workers. Considerable work will need to go into understanding howwe can best expand these protections. Queensland has already started this effort, having legislated a framework that will see gig economy workers brought under their workers compensation scheme.

These changes provide an initial pathway for other governments to consider as they lookataddressingthisissue.WithMs Tough’smotion,thisisexactlytheworktheACT government will do. Addressing this issue will not be straightforward, and I will

continue to work with my counterparts in other jurisdictions on finding the best approach. Ilook forward to keepingtheAssemblyupdatedonthis workas itprogresses. The central point of today’s motion is about how we respond to people falling through the gaps of our workers compensation scheme. It is about the experience of injured workers and how we ensure that they are adequately protected.

The points raised by Ms Clay’s amendments are important and I genuinely appreciate her continued advocacy for arts sector entities and employers in our community. The recent inquiry into insurancecosts that Ms Clayreferences providedsignificant insights into employers’ experiences of workers compensation premiums. Work is well underway on the ACT government’s response to that inquiry and I look forward to the government tabling it.

The issue that Ms Tough’s motion raises and asks the government to undertake work on is the issue of those who are in employee-like conditions yet receive limited to no support following a workplace injury. This is a matter that I was disappointed to see receive limited attention in the committee’s recent inquiry as it fell outside of the terms of reference that they drafted. It is a body of work that is important and I firmly believe it deserves its own focus. For this reason, respectfully, we will not support Ms Clay’s amendment.

The recommendations of the inquiry did not go to the approach contemplated by Ms Clay’s amendment. It would likelyrequiresignificant considerationinits ownright. This work would be quite different to the work that would be undertaken in response to Ms Tough’s motion, and I do not think it would be of assistance to either issue by attempting to deal with both together. However, I genuinely appreciate the continued interest of the Assembly in workers compensation matters and I look forward to the further advocacy on this matter that will take place.

Question put:

That the amendment be agreed to.

The Assembly voted—

Ayes 13

Noes 8

Chiaka Barry Andrew Braddock Peter Cain Fiona Carrick Leanne Castley Jo Clay Thomas Emerson Jeremy Hanson

James Milligan Deborah Morris Laura Nuttall Mark Parton Shane Rattenbury

Andrew Barr Yvette Berry Tara Cheyne Suzanne Orr Michael Pettersson Rachel Stephen-Smith Caitlin Tough Taimus Werner-Gibbings

Amendment agreed to.

MR WERNER-GIBBINGS (Brindabella) (5.07): I want to make a couple of points. I thank Ms Tough very much for bringing this motion forward. I was, at the start of her speech, relieved to hear that she is not a shill for workers compensation lawyers. I think

that was an important point to make; when I saw it, I did wonder. I am speaking from the perspective of being a member of the committee that recently delivered the insurance report. I am not speaking as the chair of that committee in this instance; I am speaking as a member of the Assembly, in which case I wholeheartedly commend the committee for the work that it did on this report. As Ms Tough mentioned, it has a member of every single party and Independent on it. We started off with six members. We lost a member and gained another member. We then lost two members, and gained a different member, but we were able to keep the work going.

With the work we did, it did cover what the Greens amendment asks for. We did the work about asking other sectors how they were struggling or how they were getting through paying for workers compensation premiums. We had members of the arts organisations in the ACT and members of frontline community services who appeared before us.

Ms Tough’s motion and the Greens amendment that has now been shoehorned into the motion talk about and refer to two completely different issues. My problem with the amendment that has just been passed is that it does not necessarily undermine Ms Tough’smotion,butitdoesdiluteitsintent andthe utilityofthesubsequent government response.

Ms Tough’s motion was about expanding workers compensation to gig workers. The amendment that we have just voted on is about thinking how workers compensation premiums impact arts and frontline community services, and what support the government can provide. They are two completely different issues.

As a committee, we did not look at the issue raised by Ms Tough—expanding workers compensation to gig workers—but we did very much look at how arts and frontline community services are impacted by workers compensation premiums. We did the work. It is all there in the report. We made recommendations to government. We asked the questions that Ms Clay raised just now. There were 21 recommendations in the report. Of those, recommendations 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are relevant or reasonably relevant to the issues raised in the amendment that we have just voted on. It is not necessary.

Iwouldurgethegovernment, as faras possiblewithintheterms oftheamendedmotion, to keep and target its response to the impacts and the possibilities of expanding workers compensation to gig workers, because, as I said just now, there is no information. The government has not previously been asked to do any work on that issue. It is already doing a significant amount of work, thanks to the committee’s report on insurance in the ACT, about the impact on arts and frontline community services insurance premiums.

MS TOUGH (Brindabella) (5.11): In closing, I want to start by thanking everyone in the chamber today for supporting my motion. I want to take a moment to thank the unions and the gig workers who have been fighting for years to have gig workers recognised as workers, and to get these workers the legal protections they deserve, whether that be workers comp, employee life entitlements and other basic things that employees take for granted.

I also thank my former public service colleagues who navigated the complexities of gig workers to create the employee-like provisions in the Fair Work Legislation Amendment (Closing Loopholes No. 2) Act last year. I was not part of that work, but I witnessed firsthand how they navigated it—the complexities, all the little intricate things as to who a gig worker is and how this would work, and the dedication they put into it. It is why I trust the ACT public service to navigate these complexities of how to expand workers compensation to gig workers. The work of Closing Loopholes is separate from work health and safety and workers compensation, but the need to protect gig workers links them.

I thank Minister Pettersson and his office for the engagement on this issue, and the useful discussions about it and broader industrial relations reforms around gig workers over the last week or so. I thank Ms Clay for her engagement with the amendment, and being available to chat between my committee meetings and other things this week. Obviously, we did not support the amendment, but I still appreciated the good faith that she brought to negotiating it in the last couple of days. I thank Mr Milligan and Mr Cocks for their offices’ engagement on this. I sprang it on Mr Milligan yesterday in a committee meeting that I had a motion that maybe he would be interested in. I also thank Ms Lee and the Canberra Liberals for supporting the motion.

As I said previously, I know there are concerns around how it could work practically, but I appreciate members’ support for it to be investigated nonetheless, and to see what can be done. I share the concern that we have to get this right. The last thing I want to do is harm the workers that I am seeking to protect, so I do appreciate the comments. I know I lost the vote on the amendment. That is fine. It was a fun division, even if someone said “no” a bit too loudly.

I echo what my colleagues have said. It does go beyond the scope of what the motion was trying to achieve. However, at the end of the day, it will not stop the government investigating expanding workers compensation to gig economy workers. I thank my colleague Mr Werner-Gibbings, who was part of the insurance committee inquiry, for his contribution to the debate and his insight, and Mr Pettersson as well.

I find it amusing that the amendment calls for something that was canvassed in what appeared to be a very intensive, detailed committee inquiry into insurance costs in the ACT which reported not even a month ago—an inquiry that made 21 recommendations to government that the government will be responding to very shortly.

I want to acknowledge what Ms Clay said in her amendment. The work that our frontline community services do is incredible. It is important. It is valuable. I want to acknowledge the work that DVCS does every single day, helping vulnerable Canberrans, and the same goes for other frontline services. This is nothing against DVCS and others. It just was not really in the scope of the motion. But I do appreciate the intent. The same goes for our arts and creative sectors. They are invaluable to our community.

Going back to the motion, I hope this is the first step in expanding workers compensation to gig workers in the ACT. The digital platforms are making a fortune while the workers are earning a pittance, while the workers do not yet have basic workplace entitlements, and while the workers are not protected if they are injured at

work.

These platforms that we all use to get food delivered have overtaken restaurants having their own home delivery services. They charge these businesses a fortune for the convenience of being on the platform, and the businesses see very little return for it. As Minister Pettersson pointed out, where a restaurant or a fast-food outlet has in-house delivery drivers and externally engaged gig workers doing delivery through an online platform, there is a discrepancy between these workers, just on a shift-to-shift basis. And there is a huge contrast when there is a workplace injury for these workers.

I thank the chamber for supporting my motion. I think this is a really great first step in supporting gig workers. I look forward to seeing the government report back in the future. It is something on which Iwill continue to stay engaged. Icommend my motion.

Original question, as amended, resolved in the affirmative.

Papers