You're leaving your job for something better. Out of caution, you dig out the contract you signed years ago — and find not one restriction but three, stacked on top of each other: a non-compete, a non-solicitation clause, and a confidentiality agreement.

You've heard non-competes are being banned, so maybe none of it matters? Not quite. Those three clauses do three completely different jobs, and the ban only touches one of them.

Here's how to tell them apart — and which one actually stops you doing what you're about to do.

Three clauses, three different jobs

Most employment contracts don't contain a single restraint. They contain a stack of them — and because they sit together under a heading like "Post-Employment Obligations," people treat them as one big "you can't do anything" block. They're not.

There are three you'll commonly find, and the simplest way to keep them straight is by what each one controls.

The non-compete controls where you work. It's a promise not to join a competitor or start a competing business for a set period after you leave. (You'll also see it called a restraint of trade.)

The non-solicitation clause controls who you take with you. It comes in two flavours: a client non-solicit stops you approaching your old employer's clients to win their business, and a co-worker non-solicit stops you poaching former colleagues to follow you somewhere new.

The NDA, or confidentiality clause, controls what you can use or share. It's your promise not to take or reveal the confidential material you picked up on the job — trade secrets, client lists, pricing, internal processes.

So: where you work, who you take, what you use. Three different questions. The clause that matters depends on which one you're actually about to do.

Employers stack all three because each one plugs a gap the others leave. A non-compete is blunt but broad. A non-solicit is precise but narrow. Confidentiality covers the information itself. Together they're meant to cover every angle — which is exactly why knocking out one doesn't clear the rest.

Picture a recruitment consultant leaving one agency for a rival. The non-compete is what tries to stop her joining the rival at all. The client non-solicit is what tries to stop her calling the clients she used to place candidates with. The co-worker non-solicit is what tries to stop her bringing two teammates along. And the confidentiality clause is what stops her copying the agency's candidate database on the way out. Same person, same resignation — four different rules, each catching a different move. Work out which move you're making, and you know which clause you're up against.

Which one actually binds you?

Here's the part that surprises people: the scariest-sounding clause is usually the weakest.

All three are "restraints of trade," and all three face the same legal test in Australia — a court will only enforce them if they're reasonable and genuinely protect a legitimate business interest. (We unpack exactly how that test works in our guide to whether non-compete clauses are enforceable in Australia.) But they don't all clear that bar equally. As a rule, the narrower and more targeted a clause, the more likely it sticks.

Roughly strongest to weakest:

Confidentiality / NDA — the strongest. It's narrow and specific: don't leak the trade secrets. It protects an interest courts clearly recognise, and a well-drafted one is the most defensible restraint in your contract. This is the one people ignore and shouldn't — you can usually leave and even join a competitor, but walk out with the client list or the pricing model and this is the clause that follows you.

Non-solicitation — in the middle. It's narrower than a non-compete: you can still work wherever you like, you just can't actively poach. Protecting genuine client relationships is a recognised legitimate interest, so a tight, specific client non-solicit often holds up. Co-worker non-solicits tend to be a little weaker — courts are warier of a clause that, in effect, stops ordinary colleagues choosing to move jobs too.

Non-compete — the weakest. It's the broadest of the three — it tries to stop you working at all in your field — which makes it the hardest to justify and the most likely to be struck down. That's not a coincidence. It's also exactly why it's the one the government is moving to ban.

The takeaway is almost the reverse of most people's instinct: the non-compete that feels like a wall is often the flimsiest, while the confidentiality clause you skimmed is the one that genuinely sticks.

Two things courts weigh heavily across all three. First, the line between protecting a genuine interest and just blocking competition — locking down real client relationships or actual trade secrets is fair, but stopping you from using the general skills and experience you built over a career is not. The law won't let an employer own that. Second, where you signed: New South Wales can trim an overly broad restraint down to something reasonable and enforce the trimmed version, while most other states can only delete words or throw the clause out. That power applies to all three of these clauses, not just the non-compete.

Which ones survive the 2027 ban?

You've probably seen that Australia is banning non-compete clauses. True — but the ban only hits one of your three restraints.

The non-compete: being banned. From 2027, non-compete clauses will be banned for workers earning under the Fair Work high-income threshold — that's $183,100 right now, and it's indexed up every July. It's expected to cover roughly nine in ten workers. The big catch: it's prospective, so it only applies to new contracts signed once the law starts. It doesn't rewrite the contract you've already signed. And if you earn above that threshold, the ban doesn't reach you yet at all — your non-compete stays subject to the usual reasonableness test, exactly as it is now.

The NDA: staying. Confidentiality clauses aren't part of the ban at all. A targeted NDA stays fully enforceable, exactly as it is today (here's how confidentiality clauses and NDAs hold up in Australia).

Non-solicitation: under review, not abolished. Non-solicit clauses aren't in the ban either. The government has said it will consult further on client and co-worker non-solicitation clauses — so for now they're on the watch list, not gone, and they remain enforceable under the existing law.

One thing not to confuse: separately from your contract, the government is also banning "no-poach" deals between businesses — where two employers agree not to hire each other's staff. That's a different reform aimed at companies, not a clause you personally sign.

So even after 2027, two of your three restraints are likely untouched. And this matters more than the law itself: the research the government relied on found that restraints discourage people from changing jobs even when the clause wouldn't actually hold up — because workers can't tell which ones bite. Assuming the ban frees you from everything is its own kind of trap.

What this means when you're leaving — or signing

None of the below is legal advice — just sensible ways to think about it.

Don't assume the ban clears you. If you're leaving a job, your confidentiality and non-solicitation obligations will likely still apply even after 2027. The non-compete might be the least of your worries. In practice, if a former employer ever pushes back after you've left, it's far more likely to be over a client you contacted or information you took with you than over the simple fact that you took another job.

Match the clause to what you're about to do. Taking a job at a competitor is a non-compete question. Taking your clients or your team with you is a non-solicit question. Using what you learned is a confidentiality question. Work out which one you're actually triggering.

If you're signing, treat them separately. They're not all-or-nothing. It's perfectly reasonable to accept a tight confidentiality clause while pushing back on a broad, two-year, Australia-wide non-compete. Narrowing one doesn't mean rejecting the others.

Know which clause actually applies to you

Back to that contract with three restraints stacked up. They're not one wall — they're three different rules, and now you can see one of them is probably on its way out while the other two aren't going anywhere.

That's the bit Contractam is built to sort out. Upload your employment contract and we'll pull apart every clause — non-compete, non-solicit and confidentiality included — score each one on how enforceable and fair it really is, and explain in plain English which actually binds you. Have your employment contract reviewed before you make your move, so you know exactly which rule applies to what you're planning.

Disclaimer: Contractam provides contract analysis and information, not legal advice. This article is general information only and doesn't account for your specific circumstances. For advice about your situation, consult a qualified Australian lawyer. Contractam analyses contracts under Australian law only.