Mr ANDREN (5:19 PM) —I rise to make a short contribution on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Termination) Bill 2002, as I have done on many of this government's workplace bills in the course of the last six or so years. I reiterate that my overarching motivation in this often confusing area is to see the creation of workplace legislation that is fair to all and that balances the rights of employees and employers alike. This is always difficult in Australian politics, as workplace law is both the traditional and the sole remaining point of differentiation between the two major parties in this country as everyone rushes to get tough on everything they can. It looks as though the government and the opposition have decided to get tough on casual workers. I have supported the government on its fair dismissal legislation on the basis of the protection it offers to small businesses of fewer than 20 employees. I am of the belief that, for small businesses in Calare, the unfair dismissal regime is a disincentive to the creation of employment. This exemption from access to unfair dismissal laws for employees of small business includes regular casual employees—that is, those who work on a regular but casual basis for a period of 12 months.

However, in relation to this bill, I find it impossible to support proposed legislation that will deny any employees, especially casual workers employed on a short-term basis, the protection of the unlawful dismissal provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. Section 170CK of that act protects employees from unlawful dismissal on grounds of absence due to illness or injury, union membership or non-membership, race, colour, sex, sexual preference, age, physical or mental disability, marital status, family responsibilities, pregnancy, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin or for absences due to maternity or other parental leave. Excluding any type of employee from part 6A, division 3, subdivision C will mean that they are not protected in workplace law from dismissal on such discriminatory grounds, as far as I can see from my reading of this bill.

I was extremely surprised that the ALP's proposed amendments to this bill do not retain this protection under subdivision C of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 for casual employees, regardless of how long they have been employed, until I found that the ALP's own industrial relations regulation No. 79 of 1994 provided for exactly the same thing—excluding this safety net for casuals. Dismissal because of discrimination should not be tolerated under any circumstances for any employee, whether they have been employed for one minute let alone for six months or one year. It is entirely unacceptable. I do understand that there are other avenues through which such discrimination might be pursued, such as HREOC and the state antidiscrimination boards, but to allow protection from unlawful dismissal to one type of employee over another is industrial discrimination in itself. If it occurs in the workplace, it is a matter for workplace law. I will be moving amendments in the consideration in detail stage to retain this basic protection for all employees, casual and permanent alike, and to amend the period of exclusion for casual employees. I trust those amendments are being circulated for consideration by the government and the opposition.

This omission by government and opposition aside, I initially supported the ALP's option to reduce the exclusion period from the unfair dismissal regime to six months for regular casual employees. However, the member for Barton eloquently illustrated the increasing casualisation of the Australian work force and its increasing marginalisation and vulnerability. It supports every concern I have had about the increasingly unequal opportunities in our society. To enable them to keep in touch, casual workers should receive equal access to the federal unfair dismissal regime as workers employed on an ongoing basis.

About an hour or so ago, I had a group of kids from Lithgow—year 6 students, and very bright and intelligent youngsters they were—and I did a straw poll of just how many of their parents or guardians were employed part time and casually and whether, as far as they knew, their parents wished that they had full-time employment. Fifteen of those 30 kids put their hands up and said, `Yes, my dad or mum can only find casual and part-time work.' That supports the sort of data we have heard about in this debate. It shows the increasing acceleration of the part-time and casualised work force in this country.

The Bills Digest refers to ABS data showing a 117 per cent increase in the casual work force from 1984 to 1999. This is incredible growth compared with permanent employment for the same period that grew by only 19 per cent. No wonder the employment figures are so good, especially seeing that you have to work only one hour a week to be considered employed—some economic miracle, as boasted by that guru of economic rationalism, John Hyde, in yesterday's Australian. It all depends on how you measure it. All these figures point to the fact that this country has a major social inequity problem: it is called underemployment.

At August 2000, the ABS pointed to a casual work force of 27 per cent, and last night the member for Barton stated that this is now more like a third. I agree with the honourable member that, even in recognising that some of these will be second jobs—by necessity to pay debt, I might add—it is an extremely high number of people. Where is the miracle economy for them? Over the last decade, as the member said, 87 per cent of new jobs paid less than $26,000 per year and half of that number earned less than $15,600. I agree with the member for Barton's assertion that this is well below the minimum wage and suggests that the vast majority of these new jobs are casual or part time. What we have is a large and growing underemployed group of workers all plumping the economic indications because they work over one hour a week but yet are increasingly marginalised due to their casual employment status. They have no sick or holiday leave benefits, little super and little security, as they will have no access to the property market as no-one gives a home loan to a casual employee.

I believe casual workers are not nearly compensated enough, even with casual loading. They should in the least be afforded the same opportunity for protection against unfair and unlawful dismissal as their full-time and part-time ongoing counterparts. A full-time or permanent part-time employee in a staff of over 20 under a federal award can claim unfair dismissal if they are sacked at any time after the completion of their three-month probationary period. A casual employee who might, for example, work the same number of hours per week as a worker employed on an ongoing basis does not have the same opportunity. Perhaps we should be looking at legislation that determines any worker that is employed on a regular casual basis for more than six months will be deemed to be a full-time or part-time employee on an ongoing basis—but that will be for another debate.

We create the potential for further unrest and discontent in the workplace when we try to determine standards of fairness and decency between employees and their employers and then decide that these standards are not universal to all employment relationships. It is one thing to talk about the wish for people re-entering the work force and how handy it is to have casual and part-time work—it creates all this flexibility and that is just what people want—but a hell of a lot of the people going back into the work force on that basis are second income earners in fairly well-off circumstances. I am talking about that large number of people in the work force whose only work is a sketchy portfolio of casual work that they try to stitch together to support the fabric of their family, pay their mortgage and their plastic card which is used on an increasing basis to buy the basics such as groceries. We all know what the per head credit debt is in this country, and that is an issue of real concern. It is a time bomb that is ticking away. It is causing social distress and unrest in families. It is an absolute nonsense to say that the casual work force is a happy and contented lot and isn't it great, isn't it flexible?

This bill does not do the same deal that standards are universal with its exclusion of casual employees with less than 12 months service from access not only to unfair dismissal protection but also to protection against unlawful dismissal. That contravenes all notions on human rights and equal opportunity in this country. So, while consistently supporting the position of small business in the fair dismissal legislation that has been such a point of contention in this and previous parliaments, I come down strongly in support of employees in this bill. I commend my amendments to the House. I believe the opposition amendments do not go far enough and, as it stands, I cannot support the bill.