Senator MURRAY (10:54 AM) —I wish to speak briefly on the outworker inquiry. May I precede my remarks by complimenting both the chair of the committee, Senator Collins, the deputy chair, Senator Ferguson, and the members of the committee for the manner and the method adopted for the inquiry. Frankly, the economics committee, in my term on it, which is now two years, has always been populated by people who, whilst they may have strong political and personnel differences, are extremely cooperative and judicious in the way in which they deal with issues. Several members of that committee are here, and I record the thanks of the Democrats for the way in which they approach an exceptionally heavy workload. In doing so, we thank the secretariat for their approach too.

The outworker issue is dear to the heart of the Democrats, and it was former Democrat Senator Spindler, my predecessor on the committee, who did, in fact, initiate the reference. I must say, it is to the credit of every other party that has been involved that the issue of outworkers has been wholly embraced. Despite what Senator Ferguson described as a philosophical difference on a few points, which Senator Bishop characterised as fundamental differences, I have had no doubt whatsoever that all parties wished to see the conditions, status, nature, protection, health, safety, welfare and remuneration, in the bigger sense, of outworkers improved. That broad attitude has driven the committee to produce what is another helpful milestone in advancing the cause of the outworkers.

Having acknowledged the work of former Democrat Senator Spindler, I must also acknowledge the government with regard to outworkers because it was in negotiations between minister Peter Reith, me and my adviser, John Cherry, that the outworkers, for the very first time, gained recognition in our national industrial relations legislation. That was a direct result of a government and Democrat agreement. On that hook, I hope that we can hang the clothing, if you like, of much better consequences for that class of workers.

In particular, it is important to us that the government does not view the award provisions and the general industrial relations provisions for outworkers narrowly. It is important that, with them entering the formal machinery of industrial relations for the first time—and I say for the first time because the act was proclaimed on 1 January 1997, so it is only a little over 18 months old—the Industrial Relations Commission takes as broad and as flexible an approach to outworkers involvement in the formal machinery of industrial relations, certainly to begin with. Later on you can iron out the problems with perhaps unintended consequences, which I think is what Senator Ferguson was implying with his note about philosophical differences, or a fundamental problem, which I think is what Senator Bishop was fearing.

Frankly, none of us can yet see where the road will take us and how well those people's welfare and needs will be improved. All I know is that the work of the committee has exhibited for me the very best of Senate and parliamentary work whereby we have been able, on a cross-party basis, not a bipartisan basis, to genuinely advance the cause of outworkers quite considerably in cooperation with the unions, who have done an outstanding job on this particular issue, and many of the major employers, who have also done an outstanding job. I am hopeful and optimistic, in fact, that outworkers lives will be improved as a result of the work done by this committee and its predecessors, by the government, with regard to the Workplace Relations Act, and by the unions and employers in the broader community. That said, we recognise there are many deficiencies and problems, and those are clearly identified by Senator Collins in her remarks and in her report.

Since so many of those outworkers were not English speaking when they arrived here—and many of them are probably still not English speaking—and many of them are not Caucasian, I cannot not help wondering whether the committee would have had a much more difficult time coming to a consensual agreement if it had had a One Nation person in there, with their peculiar attitudes to people who are not necessarily of Anglo-Saxon stock, such as those I am addressing right now. In that sense, I am very glad that the committee completed its work before the possible entry of One Nation into the Senate after the next election.

Having said that, I urge the chair and the deputy chair of the committee to keep the matter on the agenda. I think they have done exceptionally well, with a bit of help from the rest of us. We should continue to look for ways in which we can advance the cause of those workers who are probably the most disadvantaged, the weakest and at most risk in our existing system.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Senator Murray, do you seek leave to continue your remarks?

Senator MURRAY —Yes. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.

Leave granted.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I call Senator Calvert.

Senator Mackay —Excuse me, Mr Acting Deputy President, I think I was next to be called in relation to this report.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —You should actually stand so that the chair can recognise you.

Senator Mackay —I did.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I had encouraged Senator Murray, when nobody stood in the chamber, to seek leave to continue his remarks so that the report could continue on the Notice Paper . There was nobody standing when I asked Senator Murray to do that, but I will call you now.