Sorry Rojer Wilco, I respectfully disagree that everything hinges around what is written in the contract. Have a look at Re: Porter:
"The parties cannot create something which has every feature of a rooster, but call it a duck and insist that everyone else recognise it as a duck" 
Re Porter 
(1989) 34 IR 179 at p. 184 per Gray J
Its an oldie, but a goodie. Still good law and quoted quite a lot.
You may be jumping the gun to suggest that the poultry in question has the features of a rooster or the name of a duck. I was merely suggesting that we need a look at it's feathers to check to see if it was a bird at all.
A few points to make, not because I disagree with you, but because they might be helpful.
I see you referred to
Vabu. Something that is often overlooked in the case is that the High Court decision in
Hollis vs Vabu followed an earlier Court of Appeal taxation decision involving the same company being
Vabu vs FC of T. In that decision (in respect of which leave to appeal to the High Court was refused), the NSW Court of Appeal had decided that couriers employed by Vabu were in fact independent contractors for the purpose of determining Vabu’s liability to pay superannuation guarantee charge contributions.
In
Hollis vs Vabu, the High Court noted the distinction between its decision and the earlier Court of Appeal decision in
Vabu vs FC of T, and was at great pains to ensure that it was understood that the earlier descision still stood as good law.
My point is that courts will decide very differently on employee/contractor relationships when asked to do so in the different contexts of tort and the various statutory provisions relating to tax and employment. See also a recently unreported case
Collin Ross Ralston v Peter Bell & Warren Smith t/as Xentex Patch & Grout & Anors [Supreme Court of NSW, Common Law Division] 2010.
Also, I'm unaware of the
Independant Contractors Act being relied on in any instance to determine that a negotiated price for a services contract is unfair. Again, we'd need to see the duck (and in this instance the egg). I can't be sure, but I'd imagine that the Federal Court might be quite reluctant to interfere retrospectively with commercial price negotiation in such a way.
Another difficulty with relying on such an action would be the necessity to accept that the bloke is actually an independant contractor, and to represent him as such to the court. It bars us from hitting the charter company for tax, super and leave owed in lieu.
Instead, I'd suggest looking at s357 of the
Fair Work Act, and working our way back from there
. Lock him in as an employee, Eddie.
Look. There's no bones about it. The fella is an employee disguised as a contractor, and he's being ripped off.
I wouldn't suggest legal action unless he was tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket. I'd suggest he accepts some responsibility for his own actions (that got him here), puts this one down to experience and moves on.
If he blows the whistle on the charter company while he's walking off then so be it.