Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

I doubt the minister, and maybe not even the department, would have had the opportunity to consider this. What is being raised here is an issue of very broad concern. Minister, I ask you, through the chair, to take a professional and quite deep interest in the matter as you progress towards the resolution of the substantive bill. I appreciate that it is not your portfolio, but I also appreciate that consultation is going to occur not just between the Labor government and outside parties but also internally. The issue is that apparently—and it is very difficult to get the statistics—anywhere up to 800,000 Australians may not be covered or underpinned by the safety net of an award. The issue is whether the National Employment Standards will substitute and therefore cover them or whether something needs to be done whereby a default provision exists for a common-rule award, which applies to everybody who is not otherwise covered.

I think the evidence is that this is an issue of concern. It is a material issue. I am not at all sure it can be dealt with in the shorthand version of Senator Siewert’s amendment, which is why I do not support it. I think it is a far deeper issue which needs much broader attention, although I think Senator Siewert is dead right to be raising this as an issue. At the heart of modern industrial policy—whether it is the coalition, the crossbenchers or the Labor Party—is the belief that you have got to have a comprehensive safety net, which means that every employee has to be covered by either an award, an industrial instrument or the National Employment Standards. It is a problem that has been identified in evidence. It is an uncertain problem; the statistics are rubbery. It does seem that substantial numbers of employees are not covered appropriately, and they should be.