Mrs HULL (10:48 AM) —I rise to support this Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002 because of my interest in helping our businesses and our producers to regain some of the competitive elements for their successful continuation. The capacity to rapidly engage staff to meet short-term needs has been a fundamental requirement of many successful regionally based enterprises. Due to the urgency of the finalisation of these bills, I will try to cut short my contribution, although it will be rather difficult after hearing some of the debate by the opposition. We do not need people to go out and listen; we need people to go out and get experience as an owner and operator of a small business. This is something that is obviously lacking on the opposition side of the House.

In regional Australia, employer-employee negotiations often involve a myriad of considerations, only some of which are articulated. Much is taken for granted and dependent upon each party showing good faith. With the passage of time, and as individuals in the two groups develop in the working relationship, each of them—not just the employer but also the employee—might seek to vary the initial basis of engagement through a variety of means. However, from time to time the expectations of one or the other might fall short of the mark, the task may no longer be required or industry conditions may change. In each of these circumstances, and in many other similar scenarios, the need may arise for termination of the services of an employee, which is something that most business employers throughout Australia have, unfortunately, experienced.

As a former owner of a small business—and my son continues that small business operation, which employs between 20 and 25 people—let me assure you that the termination process is rarely pleasant for either the employer or the employee. The proposed measures seek to provide more certainty in a challenging labour market and an extremely competitive business environment. It is very obvious, from the contributions that have come from the opposition, that they have had absolutely no employer experience prior to coming into this House, where they are paid to work, and gaining perhaps a couple of employees. That is a sad indictment on the speakers to this bill. This bill will restore for businesses the previous level of protection from unfair dismissal claims from short-term casual employees in the farming and the small business sectors; however, it will not diminish the ability for genuine unfair dismissal to be prosecuted. The current system continues to burden small Australian businesses with unreasonable costs and regulation, with no regard to productivity or circumstances of individual business. Sustaining a six-month casual employee exemption would only increase, not reduce, the unfair dismissal burden on our businesses and producers across this nation.

In regional Australia, where casual employment is a regular and valued feature of rural and small businesses, many of the job opportunities exist for short periods of time throughout a seasonal pattern across quite specific areas, including our citrus, horticultural, fruit-packing and other industries. Using very flexible arrangements, employees are often engaged for specific tasks within a growing and harvesting cycle each year, depending on the prevailing seasonal conditions. It is important that these industries continue to be allowed to engage employees under these conditions. Look at the drought we are experiencing across Australia, particularly in my electorate of Riverina and in New South Wales in general. The opposition members here from New South Wales are showing their ignorance of how country communities work and of how country people retain viability. How do you think this bill impacts on the farmer who is starting to harvest and finds he has no grain yield? Does he have to continue to employ a casual worker and exacerbate his own financial position by continuing to pay that person, rather than being able to negotiate with that person on the basis that he could not determine what his season was going to deliver in terms of employment and his own viability? That is why it is essential for the opposition to understand that this is not about everybody being able to get a job in McDonald's or KFC or Burger King or Hungry Jack's or anywhere like that in city areas. This is about people being able to get jobs in rural and regional areas where opportunities for employment are affected by the seasonal impacts on crops.

The National Farmers Federation believes the exclusion of casual employees in this manner is essential for the continued efficient operation of the agricultural industry. Many subsectors within that industry employ large numbers of casual, itinerant workers in order to meet changing demands. These jobs are all dependent on the weather. Sometimes, in some areas, these are the only job opportunities, for employer or employee. The service and agricultural industries rely heavily on casual workers due to the fluctuations in work and the seasonal timing of work. For industries that experience peaks and troughs, casual employment is an essential tool in successful business management.

The harvesting seasons for horticultural produce can be highly variable. The majority of growers and producers in the Riverina depend on casual labour to harvest their crops. This source of employment is a huge boost for the communities in my electorate, providing much-needed employment for locals and also attracting visitors to our region, including many overseas travellers on working visas. The member for Fowler talked about casuals sitting by their phone waiting for it to ring so they can get an opportunity for a job. My producers do not have the luxury of having people waiting by their phones to get casual employment. Unfortunately, they cannot get Australians to provide their work force; they cannot access a work force. Many times they are left with crops rotting on trees, in the ground or on vines simply because there was no access to casual employment at the time.

For the agricultural sector, the greatest influence on the length of the season, whether it be for produce or crops, is the weather. The season also determines how many times plants are picked over—and that means how many times you can re-engage casual employees. In a good season, a single plant may continue to produce for a long period of time, enabling more pickings. The opposite occurs if the season is poor or if rain interrupts picking or causes periods when produce is not picked for days, thereby causing wet fruit to rot. When that happens they do not have the opportunity for re-picks and therefore for the re-engagement of casual employees. Workers engaged for the season are usually itinerant, casual employees who are paid a fixed sum per bin or bucket provided. Workers are more than aware that the work will end when the season ends; they understand the issues of casual employment. Workers are more than aware that the agricultural industry, which is the backbone of this country, depends on their work and that much of their work depends on conditions that are outside the control of the employer. Producers should also be free to employ additional casual staff to supplement a small existing work force, thereby offering employment opportunities for those people who may not need ongoing casual employment but want employment just for the time being.

Due to an economic downturn, many producers have recorded a decline in employment, with many now employing only casual employees. No firm should be discouraged from employing any worker. That is something that this amendment will correct. The regulation excludes casual employees from accessing termination of employment remedies unless they have been working for their employer on a regular and systematic basis for at least 12 months—and this is sensible when you look at what happens in rural and regional Australia, rather than just the impact on city people—and they have a reasonable expectation of continuing employment with the same employer. The exclusion ensures that businesses have the flexibility they need to hire short-term casuals without worrying about dismissing proceedings if it turns out that the employee is not needed permanently. This may not always be because of bad feeling and disharmony within the relationship; it may simply be because the season has produced less need for employment than had been expected at the time of engagement. This government cannot reinstate the full casual exclusion through regulation; this requires changes to the act. This bill will move the short-term casual exclusion out of the regulations and into the act and restore its full scope.

Casual employment provides many young people with jobs, allowing them to earn an income while still studying at school or tertiary level. I wholeheartedly support that. However, 65 per cent of all casual employees are aged between 15 and 19. This bill will further encourage employers to hire young people and students who rely on casual work to continue their studies and to gain their first entry into the work force. It might not necessarily mean an ongoing position or an ongoing casual position—but this might be not only because the employer requires that, but that is what the employee requires as well.

Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show strong growth in casual employment over the past 15 to 20 years. The figures show that casual employment more than doubled from 848,300 in 1984 to 1,931,700 in 1999, which is an increase of 117 per cent. Our casual workers now represent more than 27 per cent of Australian employees. In my electorate casual employment enables young people to move freely in and out of jobs and to move through different industries.

In summary, these amendments provide a clear indication to business that this coalition government understand, that they have heard industry requests for further consideration of issues that have previously prejudiced the expansion of our work force and that they have developed these amendments to address those concerns. I continually speak on fair termination and unfair dismissal in this House because I wholeheartedly believe that the existing legislation is an impediment to employment opportunities for Australian people. It is not just the cities but also the country areas that we need to look at. This coalition government have experience in employment factors and have experience in being employers. Gauging by this debate, there is obvious neglect of that experience by the opposition. I suggest that this bill should be adopted in the House in order to give everybody a clear and concise understanding of what they might be able to achieve in the future as a business, as an employer and as an employee.