By Catherine Ngo Content writer, presenter and podcaster

An inquiry suggests that Australia establish a clear definition of "essential workers" to assist employers in future crises like the COVID pandemic.

According to the independent inquiry into Australia's COVID-19 response, led by Robyn Kruk AO, Professor Catherine Bennett, and Dr Angela Jackson, inconsistent and evolving definitions of essential workers across governments caused extensive confusion.

Essential, frontline, and key workers became part of everyday language, but they are not defined in Australian government legislation or coordinated consistently across jurisdictions. Some states had legal definitions however were not designed in the event of a pandemic.

Australia was not prepared to manage essential workers during the pandemic due to the lack of clear definitions. Pre-existing definitions or lists of essential workers were scarce, and existing ones were not suitable for identifying essential workers during a pandemic. As a result, public messaging around restrictions and essential activities was challenging and often confusing.

The report highlights instances where then Prime Minister Scott Morrison's actions exacerbated the confusion surrounding COVID-19 guidelines.

The interim report of the Senate Select Committee on COVID-19 provides a specific example. On March 18, Morrison listed certain activities as "essential" and stated that "everything else is non-essential." However, on March 24, when questioned about the definition of an "essential worker," he made the unhelpful suggestion that "everyone who has a job in this economy is an essential worker."

Separately, the inquiry learned that the pandemic's impact on essential workers contributed to their departure from their occupations. This exodus led to staff shortages in multiple industries following the pandemic.

Employers encountered considerable uncertainty

The report highlights that the workplace relations system's management lacked specific government plans tailored to crises or pandemics, resulting in often reactive responses.

The absence of such plans occurred at a crucial time when businesses faced genuine concerns about their financial stability due to lockdowns and other pandemic-related measures, affecting their ability to conduct work.

Establishing effective engagement among various stakeholders proved challenging early in the pandemic, attributed to weak existing tripartite arrangements. While engagement has shown improvement since then, there remains potential for further development and maintenance of these arrangements to ensure prompt collaboration of key parties during future crises.

Casual workers did not receive adequate support

The panel emphasises the need to address the exclusion of vulnerable workers from specific support mechanisms during a crisis. The Independent Evaluation of the JobKeeper Payment found that excluding workers based on characteristics, such as short-term casuals and temporary migrants, compromised the effectiveness of the payment. Employment status significantly impacts an individual's experience during a pandemic, including their risk of contracting the virus and the level of government support they receive. Therefore, the panel recommends that all workers, including casual workers, should have access to appropriate financial support or leave arrangements. This ensures they are not forced to choose between working for their livelihood and complying with health advice during a public health emergency.

More guidance needed on workplace health and safety

The report emphasises the importance of providing clearer advice and guidance on workplace health and safety (WHS) during future crises.

This guidance should be regularly updated as new scientific evidence emerges and circumstances and risks change.

To prevent confusion, it should be explicitly stated that compliance with public health orders is a separate requirement from WHS obligations and that fulfilling one does not automatically imply compliance with the other.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese announced that the government will issue a response after carefully considering the inquiry's findings and recommendations.

COVID-19 Response Inquiry Report, October 2024