Ms ROXON (1:43 PM) —It is quite extraordinary to speak in debates such as this one on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002, particularly when you follow a member like the member for Parkes, who no doubt has a keen interest in the employment prospects of his constituents—as we all do in this place. Time and time again members of the coalition backbench are prepared to come in here and without a shred of evidence say that, unless we change our unfair dismissal laws in some way, we are never going to create employment. There is no link ever shown or any evidence ever put forward by them, but they have an absolute belief and confidence that what they are told by the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations is true. I would have thought there would be a few people even on the government side who might not accept that so readily these days. It is quite extraordinary that every single time we have to debate the fear that small businesses have about being subject to unfair dismissal complaints.

The member for Corangamite is a good example. I am glad he is here in the House. Someone like the member for Corangamite, who actually understands the industrial relations system, knows full well that, if you put half as much energy into explaining to small businesses how to conduct their business in a way which would give them the flexibility that was required and be inside the law to employ as many people—young people and casuals—as they wanted to, we would all be a lot better placed. Instead, members like the member for Corangamite, led by the previous minister and followed in the same style by the current minister, love to terrify employers about the risk of being subjected to an unfair dismissal complaint. Rather, they could explain that employers could put people on probation and tell them that they need to perform to an adequate standard and, if they do not, they will not continue to be employed. This is not a new idea but it is one that seems to absolutely defy logic as far as the government is concerned.

Members opposite must start asking whether this is the right way to attack this problem. It is extraordinary that some members—particularly the previous speaker, the member for Parkes—say, `Casual appointment suits people. Casual employment is what people want; therefore, it is a really good idea.' Part-time employment and some type of regular casual employment may suit some people. If members opposite were honest, they would know that most people are not given a choice. If an employer says, `We would like to offer you a full-time, part-time or casual job,' the young person does not say, `What I really want is a casual job. I don't want to know how many hours I'm working until tomorrow. I don't want to know whether I'm going to have a job if I take two days off to do my exams. That would suit me perfectly.' It is a nonsense to say that employees want this sort of flexibility. We get caught up all the time in the rhetoric.

If there were some people of goodwill on the other side who were interested in this debate, who would be prepared to sit down and say, `We could run a campaign informing small businesses of how they can employ people, of the sorts of things they need to explain to employees when they are put on,' we could avoid this problem. To suggest that young people or young mothers have an active choice in the current employment market is quite ridiculous.

It was also extraordinary that some of the previous speakers said that casual work is a good thing for people to pick up a bit of extra money for their second income. This is not acknowledging that we have over two million people in the work force as casuals and that they are relying on their casual employment for their total family income. They are not relying on it for a bit of pin money, which has been suggested by some members; they are relying on it to pay for their children's education or to purchase a house. All of these things are becoming increasingly difficult and are affected by ideological debate rather than by looking at the real situation.

I particularly wanted to speak on this bill because I represent the children and youth affairs portfolio. If this bill were successful, a large number of the people who would be affected are the young people that I am seeking to represent. Many of them are young parents, particularly young mothers, who are seeking to return to the work force after having had children and having been out of the work force for some time. A number of speakers, particularly the member for Barton, have addressed a lot of the industrial relations issues—the technical problems of decisions made in the Federal Court previously that this piece of legislation seeks to get around and the injustice that could be introduced if this bill was successfully passed.

I want to take this a step further and look at the context and at the changing nature of employment that many others have spoken about. Those on the other side of this House have said, `We need to acknowledge the changing nature of employment; therefore we need to make the employment as insecure as possible.' They have not said, `We need to look at the changing market, the changing nature of employment and acknowledge that insecurity is a huge issue for our communities'. I am absolutely sure that it is a huge issue for the communities represented by both sides of the House. We should be looking at ways of providing some decent outcomes, flexibility and opportunities for the people seeking work and for the businesses employing them. We should not have this knee-jerk reaction on whether it is going to be X number of months before you can sack someone—all this sort of nonsense.

There are challenges for young people at the moment and this bill poses some great risks for them. We have seen a lot of research recently about young people delaying life decisions that might have been made in previous generations—particularly whether to purchase a house and whether to settle down and have a family. The trends are such that they cannot be explained by some people making a choice and perhaps having more opportunities. They are much more likely to be indicative of the fact that young people are coming out of schools and universities and have large debts to pay. Despite their qualifications, they are often only able to find casual employment. They cannot get a home loan on the basis of casual employment; in fact, they cannot even hope to save a deposit and apply for a loan on the basis of it. This is a real problem that should be addressed by those opposite who care about the communities that they represent.

I was watching a school program on the ABC or SBS the other night on inventions. A 10-year-old boy had come up with some brilliant invention that was going to be used to scare birds away from crops. He won $250. The interviewer asked him what he was going to do with the $250. He said, `I am going to save it because I need to buy a house and car.' I thought that was a pretty extraordinary thing for a 10-year-old to be saying, except that it is becoming a reality. If young people are ever going to be able to afford to buy a house or car and have any independence, they need to start saving very early, because they might spend many years in casual employment. It does not seem fair to me that, if you are going to have people in long-term casual employment, they should not have protection from unfair dismissal laws in the same way that other employees do.

It is a nonsense for the government to beat up that, if you are a casual employee, you should not have any of these rights. The member for Parkes gave examples about seasonal work. The people who are doing seasonal work for three or four months would not be affected by the amendments that the opposition is putting up anyway. This is for people who are working regularly, have an expectation to have ongoing employment and have been doing that week in week out; otherwise, they would not fall within this definition, whether the employment was for six or 12 months. If a casual worker works one week and not the next or a casual worker works for one day and then for five weeks the next time, they will not come within these definitions. So the debate we are having is not focused on the very issues that affect people in the community.

Even though I have only been in this House for four years, I feel like I have spoken a lot of times on a bill, or something similar, where the government wants to narrow the rights of working people, even if those people have been treated unfairly. It is hard for those of us on this side of the House to understand. Our suggestions only seek to protect people who have been treated unfairly. They do not say that an employer should be unable to dismiss someone if they have behaved inappropriately. This seems to be missed. Having listened to all the arguments from the other side year in and year out, no good reason has been given by the government as to why an employer should be able to sack a regular employee who has done nothing wrong. The protection of people who have been treated unfairly is a pretty basic thing we should strive for, but somehow it has escaped the government, particularly those on the back bench, who are prepared to just repeat what the minister says without giving it any scrutiny.

A group of people in whom I have a particular interest are the young parents who might be seeking to return to work and are often in casual employment. Recently I have visited large numbers of child-care centres and play groups and met with families. They have told me how they have not had a family holiday for five or six years. I asked them whether that was because they had not been able to save the money for it—for a lot of people income is a big thing—and inquired about the range of problems that might have confronted them. These families have never even had the opportunity to have time off work to have a holiday together, even without going away anywhere. They have worked as casuals for four or five years, do not get paid sick leave or holiday leave, and are often not entitled to time off. If the employer wants to offer them work, he says, `You will lose your casual job if you do not work.' I do not think that is the sort of country we want to live in. I am sure that the member who is going to speak after me does not want families in his electorate to never have the opportunity to holiday together.

I have also met with more and more mothers who are saying, `I cannot say yes to any employment offer because the employer will not tell me what days I will be working and I cannot not get into child care if I cannot tell child care what days I need.' We have heard more and more examples of people saying, `I found out which days I can get child care, and then I have gone to look for a job where I can work on those days.' This is a ridiculous situation for people to be in. The government are adding an extra layer of insecurity to these problems by saying, `If you manage to negotiate your way through all of these changes, we are going to make it easier for you to be sacked, as well.' How is that fair and decent? It is an extraordinary proposal.

I am also concerned about students, who are often used as examples of why we want to make casual employment easy and why we want to support it as a system. Casual employment may work for many students but for many it causes great problems because they do not have any predictability as to when they can work. We have seen recent reports from the Vice-Chancellors' Committee of students who miss classes regularly and who are sometimes even at risk of missing exams or losing their jobs because they cannot negotiate with their employers appropriate working times—they have no rights. These people—even if they are working as casuals in those jobs year in, year out, probably throughout a four- or five-year degree—are still not regarded by this government as being worthy of having any rights. That is outrageous. I do not believe that all of the speakers on the government side could want to introduce this sort of system.

I am also worried about a specific proposal in this bill that not many on the other side of the House have talked about, and that is the introduction of filing fees for unfair dismissal claims. The only reason the government repeatedly tries to introduce these fees is that it is not interested in people who do not have very much money being able to fight their claims and get a fair hearing in the Industrial Relations Commission. There is no reason for wanting to introduce these filing fees other than to ensure that those who have enough money can fight and those who do not have enough money have to go quietly. It is the reverse of the situation we should have. We have an unfair dismissal system which is supposed to be designed to be relatively cheap, for both those who might have claims made against them as well as for those who are making the claims. It is unfair that the government is seeking to introduce a charge which might prohibit people from pursuing their rights. So that is another real problem for families, for young parents and for students, who might have been working for a long time in casual employment, who might have done the right thing and who might have been treated harshly by employers but who will not be able to bring a claim unless they can come up with enough money to do so. That is not the sort of system we want to live with. It is inappropriate.

The government should spend time with the small businesses they constantly say they are talking to and explain to them how they could use the current laws to employ people appropriately—how they could use probation periods and give employees a decent hearing and the notice that they should have before the employer terminates them. Then we would not have to keep debating this bill time and again. We would be able to move forward on some of the things that need to happen to give people security in this country. That is what the minister and members on the other side of the House should be interested in. They should be interested in their constituents having secure employment and being treated decently. If they are not treated decently, they should be able to complain to someone and they should not have to pay through the nose to be able to do so.

I do not believe that the backbenchers on the government side really understand what the government is trying to do here. They believe in the minister for workplace relations. They are taking him at his word, which is a pretty dangerous thing to do. They should look a little more closely at what their constituents, their students and their young mums are saying about casual employment because they are not interested in this sort of ideological battle year in, year out. They are interested in getting secure employment and decent rights. They do not mind having flexible employment if they can get a little predictability. Members on the other side of the House should be doing all they can to achieve that, not everything they can to take those rights away. I hope I am not going to be here year in, year out, for however long I have the right to be in this parliament, arguing with the government over this legislation, which should be withdrawn.

The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.