Petra Mahy – Indonesia's House of Representatives (DPR) is currently debating a new labour law. Labour law has been left in a very messy state following the protracted saga of the Omnibus Law on Job Creation during the second period of the Joko Widodo presidency (2019-2024).

The Omnibus Law's flawed legislative procedures, rearrangement of legal norms in contravention of legal hierarchy principles, and deregulation of labour protections in breach of Constitutional rights, led to the Constitutional Court overturning some aspects and then ordering a clean-up. At the same time, the Industrial Disputes Resolution Law has long been listed for revision, and the Constitutional Court has also endorsed the need for this.

A new initiative also emerged in late 2025 – a draft law specifically on gig workers. This topic has been put on the DPR's 2026 priority list.

Gig work in Indonesia has grown exponentially since about 2010 with the introduction of app-based ride-hailing options, particularly home-grown Gojek and Southeast Asia-based Grab. The model has quickly expanded beyond transport to a myriad of other services, including food and package delivery, home cleaning, home beauty and massage services, and freelancing. It is estimated that some 2.3 million people are now engaged in gig work in Indonesia.

At present, gig workers are excluded from coverage under the general labour law. The principle that they are 'mitra' (partners, or 'independent contractors'), and not employees, is rooted in the basic definitions of employment under Indonesian law. In the meantime, there have been some ad hoc attempts to regulate app-based motorcycle taxi drivers by the Ministry of Transportation, including by setting minimum tariffs.

While the problem of gig worker protection has been raised in the context of renewal of the general labour law, a preference for separate regulation has clearly emerged. This follows regional trends, with recent specific gig or platform worker laws passed in Singapore (2024) and Malaysia (2025).

The gig worker draft law was initiated by Syaiful Huda in November 2025, a legislator representing the National Awakening Party (PKB), a party currently holding 11.7% of national seats. He cited three main aims for the law: ensuring basic protections and gig workers' flexibility; establishing the responsibilities of digital platforms; and ensuring public safety.

Meanwhile, the Golkar Party (with 17.6% of seats) has claimed prior credit for the initiative, announcing to the media that it submitted an earlier draft law with accompanying academic draft in September 2025.

These political developments have occurred in the context of increased organising among Indonesia's gig workers in recent years, including various strikes protesting reduced tariffs or other unilateral platform rule changes. Notably, a major cross-platform demonstration calling for legal protections occurred on 29 August 2024 in Jakarta. Further, the death of a young motorcycle taxi driver, Affan Kurniawan, who was hit by a police vehicle during protests against the excessive benefits enjoyed by DPR legislators on 28 August 2025, led to escalated demonstrations.

The draft gig worker law

Syaiful Huda's draft, with a total of 105 articles, has been made publicly available (noting that Golkar's version does not appear to have been released). Analysis of its contents is also emerging.

First, the draft maintains gig workers' status as mitra rather than employees. It then sets out a series of protections for workers in their relationship with platforms, including:

• Platforms not permitted to set minimum hours.
• Platforms not to prevent workers from providing services to other platforms.
• Minimum tariffs to be determined by further government regulation.
• Tips paid by customers to be transferred directly to workers without deducting processing fees.
• Platforms prohibited from discriminating between workers.
• Platforms to have sexual harassment prevention policies.
• Platforms only allowed to end the contract, or to non-activate platform access, in accordance with contract terms.
• Contracts not allowed to prevent worker organising.
• Workers have the right to access pay slips.
• Workers have the right to social security contributions.

The draft also has safety provisions, requiring platforms to provide safety training to workers and to limit cumulative hours of work.

While these protections appear reasonably thorough, and to be even more expansive than the legislation in Singapore and Malaysia, the draft's approach to dispute resolution and institutional supports is arguably less mature. Certain provisions seem to have been copied directly from Malaysia's 2025 Act without much tailoring to the Indonesian context.

The draft requires platforms to provide internal complaints processing mechanisms. Then, there is to be a conciliation step, with government designation of 'conciliators' to come from the 'Directorate General of Industrial Relations' (which is a Malaysian entity). Separately the draft requires the establishment of a 'Director General of Gig Workers' within the Ministry of Manpower, seemingly creating overlapping roles.

The term 'conciliation' in this context would also likely cause considerable confusion given that under Indonesia's general labour disputing procedures, conciliators are private individuals, while the government provides 'mediation'. Historically, conciliation in industrial disputes has been a dead letter with disputants invariably choosing government mediation.

Further, the draft envisions the establishment of a separate gig worker tribunal with members to be drawn from 'law and justice' circles. There are many questions to be asked here, including:

• the feasibility of establishing a separate tribunal (particularly when Indonesia already has a Court of Industrial Relations).
• which parts of the country would have such tribunals.
• lack of worker representation on the tribunal.
• lack of appealights to the courts.

A separate provision in the draft requires the Government to provide an appeal process for gig workers whose contract has been terminated by a platform. It is not clear whether the gig worker tribunal is intended to provide this, or if yet another process is envisaged.

Also lifted from the Malaysian Act is the establishment of a Consultative Council to advise the government on gig worker issues – this does envision gig worker representation, although how such persons would be selected is left undecided.

While protection of gig workers is a worthy goal, and political momentum seems to be building, the current draft law requires far more development to be an effective regulatory tool. The law needs to be much more carefully designed in interaction with existing industrial relations institutions, particularly in the context of the broader labour law renewal process that is under way.

Source: https://indonesiaatmelbourne.unimelb.edu.au/a-specific-gig-worker-protection-law-for-indonesia