Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That this House:

(1) recognises the decision handed down by the Federal Court of Australia upholding Fair Work Australia's decision to allow students covered by the retail award to have a minimum engagement period of 1.5 hours, which will allow students to work after school to gain independence, important workforce skills and the experience of work while still at school; and

(2) commends young aspirational Australians who will be able to start in the workforce as a result of this decision.

The decision handed down by the Federal Court took too long. It meant that for 2½ years young Australians were not able to work after school. The decision also needs to be expanded, because currently young Australians who want to work before school, doing such things as a paper round, cannot do so. How we got to the stage where we have a government which is intent on putting laws in place which will prevent young Australians from working before or after school—before this Federal Court decision was handed down—is beyond belief. It goes to show the ineptitude of our current Prime Minister, because it was when she was the minister for workplace relations that these laws were first put in place.

The history of this motion goes back to 2010. I received a phone call from Jane Spencer, whose son Matthew had just been told by the manager of the Terang Cooperative, Charlie Duynhoven, that he could no longer work after school. She was incredibly confused by this decision. She said that Matthew was incredibly confused by the decision and that the manager of the co-op, Charlie Duynhoven, did not want to take the action that he had to; he was forced to because of the new government bureaucracy and the laws which had been created by the reregulation of the workplace under Julia Gillard. Once I examined what had happened, I soon realised what the unintended consequences were of this law. There were actually six students who had been leaving their local school in Terang at 3.30, going to their local cooperative and starting work at four and working through until 5.30 when the cooperative closed. In most country towns the stores usually close at 5.30 or six. They are not open until seven, eight, nine, 10 or 11 o'clock at night. But what had the then workplace relations minister decided? That there needed to be a minimum engagement in the retail sector of three hours. So these six young students could no longer leave their school at 3.30, go to the cooperative at four o'clock and work for an hour and a half. Instead, they were told by this government, 'Go and play on your PlayStation. Just go home and sit and watch television, rather than get some work experience and some pocket money and save to buy your first car.' This is no joke. This is the message that was being sent to young Australians.

Two of those cooperative workers—Leticia Harrison and Matthew Spencer—decided that they would not put up with this. They said, 'This is inexplicable. This is wrong. No government should prevent young Australians from working after school if that is what they want to do.' They decided to take up a petition. They got a petition in the space of three or four weeks of over 2,500 signatures, which they took down to the then workplace relations minister's office, the now Prime Minister's office. They presented it to her and said, 'We want our work after school back. Could you please give it to us?' What happened? Nothing. Although she said she would fix the problem, what did she do? The then workplace relations minister sat on her hands and did nothing. This was the start of what the Australian people were to see—a Prime Minister who said one thing and then did another, a Prime Minister who to this day is haunted by her lack of credibility because she seems to have problems delivering on what she says—for instance, when she said, 'There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.'

Matthew and Leticia were not dismayed. They did not give up. They continued their fight. Backed by the retailers associations, they took it to the Federal Court. Unfortunately, the processes of decisions and appeals took over a year and a half, which was far too long. But eventually we had the Federal Court coming down with a common sense decision. It said, 'These students can go back to work and they can work for an hour and a half if the employer and the employee agree that this is how long they want to work for and if, on behalf of the students, a parent or a guardian gives their approval.' That was a fairly common sense way to approach the decision. Yet why did it take so long for this to occur? It meant that by the time the Federal Court took this decision these two young Australians, Matthew Spencer and Leticia Harrison, had left school. They could no longer do their work because the period of time the decision took meant that they were out in the workplace themselves. But given the experiences they had at the Terang Co-op they are both gainfully employed and out there working.

That is one of the lessons that we should learn from this. If young Australians are given the opportunity to do some work before and after school, it is fantastic experience for them and gives them the skills that they need to make sure that they go on after school to enter the workforce. It gives them independence. It gives them that sense of confidence and self-worth which comes with having a job. We should not forget this. This is why this government should act to allow students to work not only after school but also before school.

There were other students who were also laid off as a result of this decision. In Avoca there were four kids who used to do the paper round there before school, but because they could not work for three hours doing their paper round, they had to stop doing it. What a message to be sent to young Australians. The government is saying to them, 'We no longer want you out on your bikes early in the morning doing your paper rounds.' One of the largest employers in the town of Avoca said to me: 'I always look for the kids who have got up early and done the paper round when I am thinking of employing people, because I know there is a work ethic there that they will carry on with them in their careers after school. It is one of the key criteria I look for.'

Yet what have we done? We have shut down the ability for students to work before school in the retail sector. This is the next thing we should look to change with regard to the laws that reregulated our workplace.

I implore the House to support this motion. I am hoping that both sides will do so. I am hoping that both sides will see reason, that Federal Court has righted a wrong in this instance. I am hoping those opposite will stand as one and say, 'Yes, the Federal Court got it right' and 'Yes, the Federal Court, having got it right, should now look to do so before as well as after school.'

I will be listening with interest to hear what the government has to say about this motion. I might be jumping the gun but from feedback in my electorate of Wannon and what people are telling me is: it is decisions like this that the Gillard government has made and that Julia Gillard made as the minister for workplace relations which has caused the dismay with this government. It is one of the reasons why I think a lot of Australians are waiting with bated breath for the ballot box to come either this year or next year so that they can send a loud and clear message that they do not want to be governed by people who do not want to encourage young people to work before and after school. They want to be governed by a party which encourages people to work and especially young people to work. I commend this motion to the House. It is a good, sensible motion. It acknowledges the work that is done by the retailer associations, Leticia Harrison and Matthew Spencer. I ask the House on both sides to support it.

See this speech in context