Note: Where available, the PDF/Word icon below is provided to view the complete and fully formatted document
Select Committee on the Future of Work and Workers

FUNG, Mr Timothy, Chief Executive Officer, Airtasker Pty Ltd

Committee met at 9:00

CHAIR ( Senator Watt ): I declare open this hearing of the Senate Select Committee on the Future of Work and Workers, and I welcome everyone here today. This is a public hearing, and a Hansard transcript of the proceedings is being made. The hearing is also being broadcast via the Australian Parliament House website. Before the committee starts taking evidence, I remind all witnesses that, in giving evidence to the committee, they are protected by parliamentary privilege. It's unlawful for anyone to threaten or disadvantage a witness on account of evidence given to a committee and such action may be treated by the Senate as a contempt. It is also a contempt to give false or misleading evidence to a committee.

The committee generally prefers evidence to be given in public but, under the Senate's resolutions, witnesses have the right to request to be heard in private session. If a witness objects to answering a question, the witness should state the ground upon which the objection is taken, and the committee will determine whether it will insist on an answer, having regard to the ground on which it's claimed. If the committee determines to insist on an answer, a witness may request that the answer be given in camera. Such a requestion may of course also be made at any other time.

For the record, we have a couple of keen journalism students in the room who would like to record and possibly write up today's proceedings, which has been agreed to by the committee.

I now welcome Mr Tim Fung, from Airtasker. I understand that information on parliamentary privilege and the protection of witnesses and evidence has been provided to you. I now invite you to make a short opening statement, and at the conclusion of your remarks I'll invite members of the committee to ask questions.

Mr Fung : Thanks for having me here today. Airtasker is a community marketplace connecting people and businesses with members of the local community who are able to complete tasks to earn additional money. We are an evolution of your local notice board leveraging technology to help members of the community come together in a trusted environment to create working opportunities for Australians. Our mission statement is to empower people to realise the value of their skills. When we talk about realising the value of their skills, that means helping people find working opportunities and an ability to make money from the skills that they have.

There are a couple of interesting points that I'd like to bring up today. One addresses the term 'the gig economy', which a few people have used, and differentiating between all the different types of platforms and businesses which are being encapsulated under that umbrella. We think that it is a very, very broad term. There are many ways that you can slice and dice that broad umbrella. One way that you can do that is to split platforms into agencies and marketplaces. The way that we have defined that—and we put this forward in the submission that we made to the Select Committee on the Future of Work and Workers—is that an agency model is one in which a platform determines the service that is provided by the constituents. It determines the price and determines who within that platform is going to get the work. It is very much a supply chain in which lots of people come to that platform or that agency and then that agency goes and negotiates with its base of suppliers and provides a service.

That's very different to what I would call a marketplace model. A marketplace model is one in which the users, the community, actually decides on the service that's provided. The community decides on the price that is exchanged between the people and the community actually decides who is going to work with who rather than an algorithm or the platform deciding that. When you look at the structure of a marketplace, you see that it is very much a genuine peer-to-peer connection—much like a community notice board or any other kind of web forum. We believe that this business model is very much more aligned with all the constituents in the marketplace. For example, the way that Airtasker makes money is by charging a percentage of the amount earned by the taskers through the platform, and therefore we're completely aligned with those taskers in the sense that we don't want them to get paid less; we actually want them to get paid more. Literally, the more they get paid, the more revenue we earn.

Another point to note is that we believe that Airtasker is very much creating new work for Australians and not replacing old work. A lot of people talk about the casualisation of work or the insecuritisation of work and things like that. If we look at the anecdotal and quantitative evidence on Airtasker, we believe that anywhere from 24 per cent to 50 per cent of the work that's created on the platform is actually brand new work which would not have been able to be synthesised in the traditional permanent full-time working economy.

I spoke a little bit about pricing and how we are aligning ourselves to the stakeholders in our community. One important stat that I wanted to bring up is that more than 60 per cent of our tasks on Airtasker are not actually awarded. The job poster, the customer, does not award that job to the lowest priced person more than 60 per cent of the time. That is quite a profound statistic, in our opinion, because, in most cases, if you have two pairs of shoes that are the same, the one that is more expensive is going to be selected less often than the one that is less expensive. It is interesting to note that, on Airtasker, it's very much not a commodity; the people are being valued for their skills and their reputation. That's why 60 per cent of the jobs on the platform are not awarded to the person who quotes the lowest price.

On top of that, when price increases are requested, two-thirds of those price increases is actually derived from the customer. So the customer is saying, 'I want to pay you more for this job; I believe the job is larger than we originally had scoped. I'm going to pay you more money for that.' So two-thirds of the time that a price increase is requested it actually comes from the customer.

The last thing that I will finish off on is some of the criticism that we've had on platforms like Airtasker about creating new work for Australians. That is around accreditation and licensing. Airtasker takes this really, really seriously. We have gone to the extent now of adding on to our platform various kinds of verifications and accreditations that are connected to government bodies. Things like working with children checks are now verified through the Airtasker platform. ID verification, police checks and all of these things are now verified through the Airtasker platform. The most recent case of that—and a positive sign of how we can start to close some of these gaps—is that there was some criticism a few weeks ago on Airtasker about asbestos removal, and more recently Airtasker has established an asbestos removal licensing verification on the platform so that we can address some of these things.

My closing comment would be that Airtasker is really happy to proactively engage with all the stakeholders in the community and to figure out what the best way forward is to have a positive impact on the future of work.

CHAIR: Thanks very much, Mr Fung. As I mentioned, we appreciate you coming in today. Obviously the emergence of the gig economy is raising all sorts of issues for the community and for legislators. So we appreciate you coming in and helping us work through some of these issues.

It won't surprise you to hear that in some of the earlier hearings of this committee concerns were raised around aspects of the gig economy by other witnesses, particularly in relation to pay levels and workplace health and safety. You've touched on those in your opening statement. To start with the pay levels, I hear what you're saying that you're incentivised to have people paid more—you get more of a cut if people are paid more. But do you recognise the concerns that people have that in a fairly unregulated environment, like your platform, it is possible for people to end up being paid much less than the legal award rate, let alone an enterprise bargaining rate? Do you recognise that that's a concern, and how do you think that could be addressed?

Mr Fung : I certainly recognise that it's a concern. It's been raised before in terms of pay levels. The first thing I would say is that, in relation to pricing, the use of Airtasker as a platform is regulated. It's regulated by all the same rules that apply to anyone who would contract services outside of Airtasker as well. Whether you're engaging with someone through Gumtree or a local noticeboard or whether it's through Yellow Pages or Airtasker, all the same regulation applies. If you go on to Airtasker, all of the tasks that are on the platform are totally transparent and, in effect, public information. All the same governance and all the same rules that apply to any kind of transaction that happens through any kind of channel apply on Airtasker.

CHAIR: But it is possible, isn't it, that if you engage me through Airtasker to come and clean your house, or for any other task, I could end up being paid below or well below the award or the legal rate? I'm not trying to pick on Airtasker. I acknowledge what you're saying—that it's probably an issue across all platforms. It is possible for that to happen. Have you got any suggestions about how we can stop that from happening?

Mr Fung : I would definitely underscore that by saying that these channels have been around for many, many decades or centuries of how people can connect with other people and agree to do something in exchange for money. All the same rules apply to that. In terms of suggestions, I think that it addresses an underlying issue about the broader community which is around awareness of some of these trust, safety and pricing issues. For example, you could ask someone on the street whether they know when a plumbing licence is required or when an electrical licence is required. Is it required to set up iPod station? Probably not an electrical license. Is it required to install a TV on a wall? Probably still not. Is it required to install complex lighting installations? Yes. I would say most people would probably say yes, but those lines are not clearly drawn.

Coming back to the same thing around pricing, I think the answer is education. We need the broader community to be aware of things like what a fair wage is for somebody else to earn. We recently did some work with New South Wales to put all of that information in a way that could be consumed by individual people. The documentation that's out there now was properly designed more for business users—corporates and enterprises—and it's probably not as friendly for mum and dad or the person up the road to understand what a fair wage is for different kinds of things. The data that we're seeing on Airtasker shows that, when you connect two individuals together, you don't end up with the same kinds of interactions that you end up with in industrial corporate interactions. The way we differentiate that is that, when you're talking about these industrial corporate interactions, everyone's trying to undercut each other and get the best price and get the best deal for themselves. We think that happens much, much less in peer-to-peer interactions when you're actually dealing with an individual. We can see this because 70 per cent of the time that someone needs a price adjustment, that's actually being made by the customer. That's the customer saying, 'I want to pay you more money.' I think that that is solved by having peer-to-peer interactions in the community rather than industrialising various services economies, which actually necessitates the need for some of these collective bargaining structures.

CHAIR: Unions NSW admitted that Airtasker had taken a more proactive position to those of these issues than some of the other platforms around. It sounds like what you are saying is that it comes down to education of the community. But don't you think that platforms themselves have some responsibility to ensure that laws are being complied with? If you're the intermediary that's connecting a buyer and a seller, you're making money out of it—and you are quite entitled to do so—don't you think there is a responsibility on the platform providers to ensure that laws are being complied with, whether they be about pay or licensing?

Mr Fung : I think that there is a pretty large grey area when you're talking about platforms that facilitate work. By no means am I trying to be facetious when I say this, but email is a platform that allows people to connect and negotiate an exchange of services for money—as are mobile phone networks and any other kinds of forums on the internet. In any of those cases, the questions would come around to whether the information is available and whether we actually want to use that information, survey all of that information, and have people having their private conversations tapped et cetera to make sure that a form of regulation is adhered to, especially when further information, in many cases, would be required to do that anyway. For example, on Airtasker, someone might say, 'Clean my house, and it's $100.' That house could be a one-bedroom apartment that takes half an hour to clean or it could be a 30-bedroom mansion that takes three days to clean. So I think that would be difficult to do anyway.

One of the things that we believe in strongly at Airtasker is not commoditising people necessarily by their time. When we say that what we're saying is that some people have the skills to be able to do things incredibly quickly and some people may not have the skills to be able to do something so quickly. By commoditising that person down into their hourly unit, in many cases you are actually penalising people who have really, really good skills. I can give an personal example about that. The example is Ikea furniture assembly. If I was doing it with a supplied allen key it would take me 20 minutes to assemble a chair. There were 15 chairs to assemble and it would take me hours to do that. I engaged an Airtasker user to come over and assemble these chairs for me. They had a pocket drill, know-how, experience and speed, and they were able to do that in less than hour. I ended up paying $80 for that job, which for me was a couple of hours of decent work. So I saved time and money and created value for myself there. But, since this user was able to do that in less than an hour, they made $120 an hour. I think that user would be really heavily penalised if we commoditised them down to, say, an hourly rate of $25, $30 or $40.

CHAIR: I have a range of other questions, but I will give Senator Stoker a go first.

Senator STOKER: How does Airtasker deal with managing the risk of injury to people who are completing tasks for a poster?

Mr Fung : Airtasker has multiple forms of insurance on the platform. The first kind of insurance that we rolled out about four years ago is third-party public liability insurance for personal injury and property damage. That protected a tasker for any third-party injury that they may have caused or any kind of third-party damage that they might have caused, but it didn't protect the tasker themselves for injury that might have been caused to themselves. So earlier this year we launched personal accident cover—which is exactly that—and it is provided for no extra charge to the taskers on the platform. So, if a tasker is injured whilst they are completing a task or on their way to completing a task, they are financially protected from that outcome. On top of that, we've also introduced personal income protection insurance. At an additional cost that a tasker can choose or choose not to purchase, they get income protection and income smoothing, which is also a form of protection in the case of injury that prevents work.

Senator STOKER: Do you have any evidence to support the proposition that people who choose to complete work through Airtasker are choosing to do so because of the flexibility it offers—that's to say, they prefer a flexible model to the rigidity of a traditional employment model?

Mr Fung : Yes, there's a lot of evidence that suggests flexibility is the most important thing that people want in their work. An Australia-wide representative survey suggested that 37.4 per cent of people believe that flexibility is the most important thing in any kind of work. Surprisingly, even to me, flexibility is considered to be even more important to more people than pay. I think that's a positive sign. It shows that people are valuing things such as their time and their ability to do other things more than their pay.

Senator STOKER: Do you have any evidence about the proportion of people who are completing work through Airtasker who are choosing to do it because they've got other jobs or other projects or other interests on the go?

Mr Fung : We don't survey people and ask them if they have other work on the go, but 70 per cent of the people on Airtasker complete fewer than five jobs per month. That would certainly indicate that they have another form of occupation or something else that they do with their time. One of the important things to also know about Airtasker is that it's a proactive opt-in platform for every individual task that occurs. There's no form of up-front commitment that someone makes, like paying a monthly fee or agreeing to some sorts of ongoing terms and conditions. Each job requires you to proactively create a quote and for the customer to proactively select that quote from you. I would say that 100 per cent of people on Airtasker are choosing to do so in a very, very proactive way. And it does require proactive entrepreneurship to work in this way.

Senator STOKER: At the risk of adding a comment, having used Airtasker before, there are some outstanding people using the model in Brisbane.

Mr Fung : Great, thank you. One other thing to note with regard to that is the type of work that is emerging on Airtasker. Traditionally it's known for smaller, everyday chores, but over time it has started to shift into much broader sets of work, which I think is a really positive thing. That includes things such as accounting, taxation, legal advice, surveying, architectural design et cetera. That's a positive evolution of this kind of working model.

CHAIR: Not to harp on too much about the pay rates issue, because I do want to come to health and safety as well, but I've just had a look on Twitter and there's an account here that you might be familiar with called Fair Gig For All, which has had a fair bit to say about the gig economy. I don't know who's behind it, but they're obviously monitoring what's going on pretty closely. Just in the last day or so, they've posted a couple of ads from Airtasker. One is calling for someone to do about 10 hours work promoting their cafe for $150, so that would work out to be an hourly rate of about $15. The other one has been assigned, with a task price of $50 for three hours garden labour. Again, we're looking at roughly $15 an hour. I don't know what the award rates are for those two jobs, but I suspect that they would be more than $15 an hour. Whether it be Airtasker or Uber or any other platform—again, I want to be really clear that I'm not trying to pick on Airtasker; these are issues across the board—how can it be right that people are being engaged to perform work at rates that are below the legal rates?

Mr Fung : Just to put it in some context there, Airtasker sees about 130,000 jobs a month. On any weekday, anywhere from 5,000 to 6,000 jobs per day are going onto the platform. So I think the account Fair Gig For All is very selective about the information that they choose to publicise. I would also make it clear that Airtasker has tried to proactively reach out to Fair Gig For All in order to find out what some potential solutions to this would be. I would say that in that regard we wouldn't support somebody who wants to pay someone something below the minimum wage. Do we have the technology, the operational nuance et cetera to go in and check every single one of those tasks on an individual basis? I would say that would be cost prohibitive. But certainly the information is made public. This information is available to everybody in the community. So, unlike private channels like email and phones and things like that, this information is widely available and so should fall into the same category as any other kinds of exchanges that happen between people in the community.

CHAIR: Again, I recognise that you have gone some way to try to prevent these issues by trying to educate people about award rates. But wouldn't it be possible to design a system—whether it be a link to awards or in some way connecting to what the award rates were—in a way that required that a task couldn't be advertised at a rate lower than that award rate? Surely there's a way of building a system that does that.

Mr Fung : The first thing is that when you post a task through the platform there's a very clear button that provides price guidance, and that price guidance data was created in conjunction with Unions New South Wales. In terms of preventative measures, additional surveillance of people and then making assumptions about what all of that content means and taking preventative measures would I think not be in the interest of taskers on the platform. The reason for that is that you would end up creating a large number of false positives, in which case you are actually reducing the total amount of work available. So, yes, whilst you might prevent some jobs being advertised below the minimum wage, you would miss some, so it's a false negative. But you would also prevent a bunch of things that might accidentally be published in a way in which a computer might interpret that it could be something that would be below the minimum wage and you would definitely be losing those opportunities. Taskers on our platform consistently reiterate to us the most important thing is to have a low-friction way of people being able to create these opportunities. That reduction of friction is what has created this new economy.

CHAIR: Turning to the workplace health and safety issues, again, there's been some media coverage about these issues. Does Airtasker approve the jobs placed on the platform before they're posted?

Mr Fung : We have a number of—I should answer the question very directly. The answer is that content goes through a filter and then goes on to our platform. So there is both prevetting and also postvetting of the task content. The reason we have both of those systems is that they are both imperfect and will always be imperfect. But before the tasks go onto the platform we have a tool which goes through and kind of finds keywords which are not great keywords and removes those. Also, once the tasks are on the platform we have community moderation. I would say that is actually the biggest driver of all of these things. We need the public to be aware of what is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour in the community and for them to raise a flag about that content. If there are two flags that are raised on Airtasker, the content is taken down for review.

CHAIR: Does Airtasker a look at any jobs for potential hazards that may be posed to the Airtasker client at their house or business and also hazards that might be posed to the person accepting the job?

Mr Fung : We certainly provide guidance, community guidelines, and things that break our community guidelines are flagged for moderation.

CHAIR: What sorts of things do your guidelines preclude?

Mr Fung : Illegal activity—for example, drugs. We also prevent adult services, by choice—the law allows for it, but we don't support those. We don't support anything in regard to people using Airtasker for academic assignments, for example. There are a number of guidelines, and those are clearly published on the platform.

Once again, I would really reiterate the point that the answer to this is much more about education than it is about surveillance and prevention, in my opinion. If members of the community—mums and dads in our local suburbs—want to do things that aren't aligned with the law and community standards, then I think that's a broader issue. That's the way it should be solved.

CHAIR: Who is actually responsible for any workplace health and safety issues that emerge at a site where tasks are being performed?

Mr Fung : I believe that's different, depending on the licences that are required for the kinds of jobs. I would say this is one of the big issues. People are not aware of where the responsibility lies, as in whether it lies with the job poster—the homeowner, customer or the mum and dad—or whether it lies with the taskers. What adds to that complexity is that it's different in every state and different depending on the governing body. If you draw a Venn diagram of what covers those various governing bodies, there are overlaps. I believe there are a number of areas in which it is not clear, or perhaps it is overly clear in the sense that there are two regulations that cover certain types of tasks.

CHAIR: If I engage some sort of a tradesperson to come and do work at my house, and I call up the firm that they work for, if they're an employee, because the work is shoddy and causes some sort of damage, there's a pretty clear line of responsibility back to the employer of that tradesperson for faulty work. You're saying in an Airtasker situation it's unclear who has responsibility?

Mr Fung : In relation to dodgy work, I would say it is definitely with the tasker. They have to complete the job as was stated, so that absolutely falls with the tasker. With that example you mentioned, I would say that exactly the same thing happens on Airtasker. It's just that, rather than calling a firm which has an administration or department that contacts the individual tasker, on Airtasker the tasker is also the administrator.

CHAIR: So, if it's faulty work, the responsibility lies with the person performing the services. But what is unclear, you are saying, is who's responsible if the person performing the services suffers some kind of injury.

Mr Fung : Yes. I believe that, if the environment provided for that person to work in was unsafe, then a lot of the responsibility would lie with the person who procured the work. In relation to that, there are different levels of insurance that are provided, such as home and contents insurance. Some of them provide cover for some of these trades; some of them don't provide cover for these kinds of trades.

CHAIR: I'm sorry if you've answered this already, but do you require the purchaser of services to have a minimum level of home or other liability insurance in case someone gets injured performing work?

Mr Fung : We provide personal accident cover to the tasker so that if they are injured whilst working they'll be covered.

CHAIR: Is that an option or an automatic thing?

Mr Fung : We pay for that out of the service fee that's charged.

CHAIR: Right.

Mr Fung : There's no extra charge to the taskers. On top of that, we have personal income protection insurance, and that is optional for taskers. They can increase it or decrease it as they like. That, effectively, acts as income smoothing on top of the personal accident cover.

CHAIR: So, through your insurance regime, there's protection for the person performing the services if they're injured.

Mr Fung : Yes.

CHAIR: But you don't require any minimum level of insurance for, say, the owner of the premises to cover them if they're injured as a result of the work?

Mr Fung : Do you mean if the customer is injured?


Mr Fung : We also provide the taskers with third-party public liability insurance for personal injury or property damage, which, effectively, means that the tasker is covered for any injury or property damage that they cause to the third party. It not only covers the customer but any other third party that they interact with during the completion of that task.

CHAIR: On the matter of licensing, am I right that Airtasker posts don't require proof of licensing or qualifications from an individual before they can take a job?

Mr Fung : The tasks on Airtasker are highly heterogeneous. They do everything from something like cleaning a bathroom to folding origami cranes to complex electrical installations. There's not a homogenous licensing regime across all of those three things, because they are clearly very different. What we again do is push the job posters and educate them about when certain licensing is required. Then, with the taskers, we offer them the opportunity to verify their licences with us and we display that licence on their profile. What this does is allow the job poster to differentiate between somebody who doesn't have a licence and somebody who does have a licence. What we're seeing is that people who do have licences get paid significantly more for jobs, and that's likely because the complexity of those jobs is much higher.

CHAIR: I'm right though, aren't I, that if it's possible for you to filter out and prevent people from advertising for certain services that involve drugs, alcohol or adult services—the things that you listed before—it would be possible to build in, through keywords or other means, some way of ensuring that work that would normally require a licence, if it wasn't on Airtasker, similarly, can only be posted on Airtasker if the relevant licence is held. That would be possible, wouldn't it?

Mr Fung : No, it wouldn't be possible. First of all, I would say that any kind of machine learning system is inherently full of errors—either there are false positives created or there are false negatives created, or otherwise. The systems are certainly not perfect. On top of that, the input data into that machine learning needs to be extremely clean, extremely accurate and audited. I would say that the underlying issue there is that the licensing regimes for many of these kinds of jobs are actually not clear. I'll give an example. If you have a look at the description of jobs that require certain kinds of electrical licences in different states, under different kinds of authorities, it's not binary information. It would be something like, 'Highly complex jobs require electrical licences,' and, typically, machine learning algorithms work on very binary information like, 'Does this sentence contain the word X?' and we can remove that. I think ascertaining and translating government information on when licensing is required is not clean enough data to be able to do that with an acceptable degree of accuracy.

CHAIR: In your opening statement you mentioned some of the issues that emerged around tasks involving asbestos removal. I understand there have been some instances where people have posted jobs for asbestos removal and other very risky tasks that could impact on someone's health a long time into the future. What more do you think Airtasker and other platforms could be doing to ensure that those sorts of highly dangerous tasks are either not advertised or, if they are advertised, are done so in a way that looks after someone's health and, again, complies with any particular laws and requirements?

Mr Fung : I would reiterate the point around education. I think people need to know. The community needs to be made responsible for this. For example, there may be a task that goes up there that says, 'Create a website about the asbestos problem that was identified in the early 2000s.' I think that task is completely acceptable. Or the task might be: 'Take photographs of a house which might contain asbestos in its roofing structure.' I think that's completely acceptable. It's going to be very, very difficult for us to survey people's private messages, their phones, emails or any of their Airtasker private messages in order to productively go and remove those jobs or ensure that the licensing is in place, and I think that would be counter to what our taskers want. They want to have the freedom and the flexibility in 99.9999 per cent of cases that are not anything to do with asbestos removal.

CHAIR: But just as you can have a keyword like 'drugs' or any other form of illegal activity to stop that from happening, you could easily put in 'remove asbestos' as keywords or every other synonym for 'remove' to capture those kinds of tasks, couldn't you?

Mr Fung : Yes. All of the content that is in our community guidelines is typically fed into the machine learning algorithm that we have to go and detect and remove tasks.

CHAIR: Does Airtasker have any procedures in place to ensure that hazardous substances like asbestos are safely disposed of at an appropriate waste management facility?

Mr Fung : No.

CHAIR: Is that something you've considered?

Mr Fung : Again, in 99.9999 per cent of cases, there isn't hazardous material included in the task. Building our software and surveillance systems to try and prevent and capture by using words like 'ensure' is going to be extremely difficult. It actually doesn't solve the underlying issue, which is that the people who are undertaking this kind of work or the people who are engaging people to undertake this kind of work are not aware of what the regulation is. I don't believe that people go in there with the intention to break the law, to take asbestos and then put it in an unsafe disposal area; I believe that people in 99.999 per cent of the cases want to do the right thing. I believe the issue is really around awareness, not around surveillance and prevention.

CHAIR: We will wrap it up in a minute, but have you taken any legal advice on these sorts of legacy issues and any potential liability to Airtasker for injuries or illnesses that might be suffered sometime down the track as a result of performing a task through Airtasker?

Mr Fung : Yes, we've taken legal advice and we also engage heavily with insurance providers at many levels of the insurance industry to be able to understand what the impacts are for ongoing potential exposure to injury.

CHAIR: You're confident, based on that advice, that Airtasker doesn't face any liability if, for example, in 20 or 30 or 40 years time, someone contracts mesothelioma as a result of asbestos removal tasks they performed using Airtasker.

Mr Fung : I don't believe we'd have legal exposure, but I certainly think we would have a social responsibility to ensure that people are looked after. Our platform is designed to have a positive impact on the future of work for Australian people. Whilst I don't believe that we have a hard responsibility to do it, I think it's something that we would productively want to go in and do.

CHAIR: That's it for me. Again, we really appreciate you coming in and engaging with us so we can try and work through some of these issues. Thank you.