Sharon Bird (Cunningham, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I want to take the opportunity in supporting this matter of public importance to tell the House what the reality is for young people, as opposed to the reality portrayed in the government’s extraordinarily expensive and extensive advertising campaign. Members of the House may be aware that, during the break, in my electorate there was a case, known as the Chili’s case, exposed in the national media. In this case, the young people working at the Chili’s restaurant were required to do some quite extraordinary things, including bringing their own cash float for their shift. Also, on arriving for their shift, they were told to sit and wait, unpaid, until the store manager had decided that there was enough business going on for them to proceed to undertake their shift. There was also a requirement that, if someone had left the restaurant without paying, they were to reimburse the cost of those meals.

This case drew a lot of attention, not surprisingly. It seems quite extraordinary that young people—and these were, by and large, university students, trying to supplement their income by undertaking work—could be exploited in such a way. Given so much coverage in the media, the Workplace Authority undertook an investigation of this case. This highlighted for me, and for the young people in the area, a point that was made following the case raised by the member for Adelaide about a young gentleman in her electorate who had been poorly treated in a service station—that is, that the reality of the protections in this legislation is that, if you can get yourself national media coverage, you will get attention from the Workplace Authority.

Since the Chili’s case was exposed, I have had a number of other local examples brought to my attention that have resulted in very different outcomes. One example was that of a young woman who works for a video outlet who had been subjected to the exact same conditions as those experienced by the Chili’s workers—the only exception being that she was not asked to bring a float to work. When I talked to her parents about what was happening, it became clear to me that this case was identical in terms of turning up for shifts and then being told that there was not enough work and that she should go home or sit around unpaid. I said to her parents that they should raise their case, as the government’s advertising had suggested, with the Workplace Authority. And here is the big difference between saying that you have a protection in place and the reality of the operation of that protection. What do you think the parents said to me when I made that suggestion to them? They said, ‘But she still wants to work there, and we know that, if we make any complaint, if we ring the Workplace Authority and they identify the fact that we have made a complaint, she will be sacked.’ That may come through the form of, ‘Sorry, there are no more shifts available for you,’ but, to all intents and purposes, for that young person, it is a sacking. So I could not get them to make a complaint. That is the lie in the government’s ad. To say that there is a phone number you can ring to get protection is a lie when you know that protection of their right to complain has been removed. Young people and their parents know full well that, if they undertake those processes, those young people will not get continuing work with their employers.

The other example that came to my attention was that of a young person who, in fact, was sacked. He and his parents made contact with my office. What had happened with them? They had followed the advice of the ads and contacted the Workplace Authority. What was the outcome for him? He was advised by the Workplace Authority that it had nothing to do with them and he would have to undertake a case through the Industrial Relations Commission. It is a pity it took them so long to reply to him that it was outside the allowable time to register a case with the Industrial Relations Commission, because the authority itself had taken so long to provide that advice to him. I have indicated to him that he should still put in for a case and explain that the reason for the delay was that the Workplace Authority could not even give him enough protection to get an answer back so that he still had time under the guidelines to go to the Industrial Relations Commission. (Time expired)

See this speech in context