Wednesday, 8 June 2022

Child Employment Amendment Bill 2022

Second reading

Debate resumed on motion of Mr PEARSON:

That this bill be now read a second time.

Mr WAKELING (Ferntree Gully) (12:09): I am pleased to rise to lead the debate on behalf of the Liberal-Nationals on the Child Employment Amendment Bill 2022. The bill before the house comes as a result of a significant review that has been undertaken by the government of this critical piece of legislation, which effectively protects the employment of children under the age of 15 in the state of Victoria. The bill before the house comes, as I said, as a consequence of that consultation.

By way of background, the regulations around child employment set out the age groups at which different types of children are able to work for profit but more importantly set out a range of protections for children to ensure that they do not face harmful effects in terms of their health or safety, effects to their moral or material welfare or development or effects in regard to their attendance at school. They also protect children from any form of exploitation. I think they are critical areas of legislation because, as we know, children are employed by a range of organisations legitimately, but we need to make sure that actions are taken which are paramount to the health and safety of children.

Within the state of Victoria, as I said, children under the age of 15 fall within the classification of child employment under this act. Any child over the age of 15 is deemed to be an employee but would be entitled to relevant junior rates of pay where they apply. A common misconception is in fact that child employment only relates to children under the age of 14 years and nine months. I do not know the history of why that actually occurred, but the legislation and the reviews actually made it very clear that that is a common misunderstanding by many in the community. In fact it clearly only applies to children under the age of 15.

Children who are aged 11 years and over are currently able to undertake delivery work and are employed in what is knowns as a ‘general industries’ area. Similarly, children aged 13 and over can be employed under a general industries permit. That could be in the areas of hospitality and retail work and the like. With respect to the entertainment industry there is no age limit, because as we know, in the entertainment industry television commercials, television shows and movies will use children of all ages. But they are required to have a permit, and that permit sets out particular conditions under which the child is allowed to be employed. I will come to that in a moment.

Children of any age working in a family business where the child’s parents or guardians run the business and they are directly supervised by the parent do not require a permit. But having said that, children who work in family businesses, including farms, are only permitted to undertake light work, which means they are not undertaking employment activities that would consider them to be involved in hazardous industries or performing dangerous tasks. In all settings, but particularly in hospitality and in farm settings, there is a range of activities that could well endanger a child’s life, and so it is imperative that that work is not undertaken as part of the light work a child undertakes—those activities. It also recognises that providing children under the age of 15 with employment opportunities that do not interfere with their education or pose a risk to their health and safety can have a positive impact on their character and work ethic as well as provide opportunities to meet people and develop their skills. So whilst, as we have said, it is imperative to have restrictions in place, there are positive aspects for some children who are involved in this area of employment—for those under the age of 15.

Currently the act provides for regulations and permits to be issued by a child employment officer. In the 1990s, when I was an employee of the Department of Business and Employment, which is now Industrial Relations Victoria (IRV), I actually worked with a child employment officer and saw firsthand the work they did in issuing permits. Their main area of engagement with industry was particularly in the entertainment industry. I remember on one occasion there was a TAC ad being produced, and as we know in the 1990s there were a number of TAC ads that were filmed. On this occasion a permit was required that allowed a child who was meant to be the victim of road trauma to be laying on bitumen, but the requirement of the permit was that the bitumen had to be cleaned so that the child was not endangered potentially by chemicals on the road. It was just interesting, the level of detail that often would be attached to a permit to ensure the protection of a child as part of their employment. That is important work, but as you would appreciate, it is also laborious, because it is a permit attached to one child in one employment setting. As you would appreciate, there are a range of areas in which children may be employed, particularly in the entertainment area, which could be overly complex, not only for the child employment officer but also for the employer concerned in terms of seeking that permit.

The government undertook a review in November 2020. The review sought to undertake a review of the current 2003 act, and it engaged research. It was highlighted by research by EY Sweeney, and they used that research project to build on the work they did as part of their review. That review sought feedback from a range of stakeholders and employers, particularly in the entertainment industry, and feedback was sought from the community, relevant unions and other interested parties in terms of ensuring we have the best protections in place to protect children but also to streamline the process and to make it easier in terms of the employment of children.

In the entertainment industry, by way of example, it stipulates, out of interest, that a child under the age of three can only work a maximum number of three days between the hours of 6.00 am and 6.00 pm for a maximum period of 4 hours; for three- to eight-year-olds the maximum number of days is four days, working between 6.00 and 11.00 for a maximum period of 6 hours; and for eight- to 15-year-olds it is five days, working between 6.00 and 11.00 for a maximum period of 8 hours. I mention that by way of example because there is a sliding scale of what is appropriate and inappropriate in terms of the amount of work that a child is able to undertake in their duties. It is about making sure we strike that appropriate balance of streamlining the process for employers to make it less cumbersome in terms of the process whilst also retaining that protection.

As someone who was a member of the Family and Community Development Committee’s Betrayal of Trust inquiry in a previous Parliament, which focused on child safety, what came out of that inquiry was the need to ensure that in all settings involving children there need to be appropriate protections in place for children who are under the care or direction of an adult. That inquiry focused on institutions, but clearly the findings out of that flowed into education and have also flowed into areas of employment, particularly around working with children checks or what is now under the Worker Screening Act 2020. Those issues have been caught up in this piece of legislation as well, and I think that is important and that is to be supported, because we need to ensure that those findings in those critical areas have been caught up in the legislation.

As part of the review, it was identified that 35 per cent of children in the workforce are involved in retail, 21 per cent in food services and the third-largest area of employment is in the entertainment industry. Permits, for example—in 2018–19 there were over 11 000 permits issued in one year for children. As I said, whilst important, it is administratively cumbersome, particularly if there are multiple permits being sought by one employer, particularly say in the entertainment industry, where there might be multiple children engaged to perform roles in a production and an individual permit is being sought for each child before they can actually undertake filming.

The government, through this process, is seeking to vary the way in which the legislation applies. The first major reform under this bill will be to convert it from a permit-based system to a licence-based system, and what will happen is that under a licence-based system they will be creating two sets of licences, an entertainment licence and a general industry licence. Under the general industry licence there will be one specific person that is nominated to represent that business, and they will be able to seek a licence to employ children. I thank the department for their briefing. It is my understanding from what I garnered at the briefing—and I will stand corrected, if I am incorrect, by the government—that there will be a portal created where employers will be able to upload information on children that they have working. So there will still be a record of the children, but the individual licence-holder will not be required to obtain the permit individually for each individual worker. They will effectively be able to upload that information so that IRV, the department, will be clearly aware of which children are actually engaged in a particular organisation, but administratively the burden will be reduced on those employers from seeking an individual permit for each child that happens to come under their control.

In regard to the entertainment industry there will be a separate entertainment licence, and under the entertainment licence a business will be required to have a nominated officer as well as an employer representative. The nominated officer will effectively be someone within the company’s organisational structure that is deemed to be an employer. If you think of a major production company, a film production company, it could be someone in their head office that is the nominated person for representing that business, but that nominated officer may not necessarily have direct access to or direct engagement with children on the set. That is why there will be also an employer representative, who is effectively the delegated person who will be identified and who will have the direct day-to-day engagement with the children on the set. In a smaller production company that could in fact be the same person, but in a large organisation you could appreciate the fact that when productions are being filmed around Victoria or potentially around Australia, for the work undertaken in Victoria a nominated officer would in fact be the person that would have more direct control with that child. Again, under this new licensing arrangement in the entertainment industry they will be able to engage children and upload the details of the children, the work being undertaken, their age and relevant information onto the portal to make it more streamlined for those businesses, because they in the past have had to seek a permit for every child that has been engaged in that setting. That is something that would be, certainly from the feedback I have received, a far more streamlined approach and would be certainly supported broadly by industry.

Also the licence applicant will be required to satisfy a fit and proper person test, and again I think that is appropriate in the circumstances. Not only is this the work that came out of the Betrayal of Trust inquiry, but broadly across the community, broadly across the Parliament, there is a greater need for ensuring that those who are engaging directly with children meet an appropriate test, and the application of the fit and proper person test is important. That does not necessarily mean that previously children have been exposed, but again this is about ensuring that we have stronger, tighter protections in place, and I think that is eminently sensible.

As part of the new licensing system there is going to be information provided to stakeholders, and I generally say to the government, to the department: with these new streamlined processes, if they pass the Parliament, there needs to be clear education and information provided to industry, to stakeholders and to families to give people greater understanding as to how the system will work and what the protections will be for their child. On the one hand it is important to educate employers and industry on the new changes and how they will benefit them, but equally you need to be educating parents of children, for example in entertainment, that there will be appropriate protections in place, particularly as in the past their child had to obtain a permit to work, and if the permit is no longer required, there still needs to be that information about protection of children as part of this process. We do not want to see a reduction in education.

Another key area of change in the bill is around the definition of ‘employment’, and this recognises that children are often engaged in a variety of different ways and in activities that may not necessarily meet what is known as the multifactorial common-law test to determine an employment relationship. It means that children may not necessarily be remunerated in the usual way of direct payment but could be offered products, merchandise or experiential work rather than monetary payment. I recall in the 1990s dealing with a case where a child was being employed in a fish and chip shop where the owner of the business would not provide payment but provided in-kind fish and chips and a can of Coke and believed that that met the test, and clearly it did not. We had to as a department get involved in that situation. But we do recognise that there are children who are engaged and receive benefits other than simply payment. This bill will provide for that, and it is imperative that the department provide clarity as to how that will work and what will meet the appropriate test, because we do not want employers unnecessarily being prosecuted for breaching the act for non-payment with the provision of other benefits. Whilst it is important that that is recognised, we need to make sure that there is education and clarity around how that will actually apply throughout Victorian workplaces.

Certainly there were questions raised in regard to the employment of children by family businesses and particularly family farms. Children working directly for their parents will not be required to have a permit if they are directly supervised, but there needs to be education in this space as well for family businesses and family farms to ensure that parents fully understand what is required of them and when they do and do not require a permit, because this is a question that often arises: if they are helping Mum or Dad on the farm to move cows, is a permit required? If they are in receipt of a payment because it is ‘pocket money’, is a permit required in those circumstances? I think it is important that through the Victorian Farmers Federation and other organisations this information is clarified for families.

What the bill clarifies is that ‘direct supervision of the child’ means that the child is being supervised by the child’s parent, a person who has parental responsibility—so it could be a carer or a family member—or, for limited periods, another responsible adult who works in the family business. We clarified through the bill briefing that that could in fact be a non-family member who works for the business like a manager in an organisation, but there needs to be an appropriate working with children check in place for that person, and it is obviously only for a limited period. Whilst it is not clarified what ‘limited’ is in terms of a specific time, it has got to be a reasonable length of time that a parent is away from the business for the person to care for that child. Going to the bank, dropping something off and returning to work will be deemed reasonable, but it may not be unreasonable for a parent to say ‘I’m absent for the day’ and to ask a manager in the business to care for their child for that day. No time frame has been specified, and I would perhaps just ask the government, through the department, to ensure that these issues are clarified for the future so that there is greater certainty as to how this will actually apply and play out within the community.

Inherently parents will not leave their child in the care of someone else unless they think that it is safe to do so. Again, the bill provides greater clarity that that can only occur for a limited period, given the fact that if it is not in a workplace setting, that parent may place their child in the care of that particular person outside of the workplace for as long as they choose. So that is accepted, but in a workplace setting it is deemed that this should only occur for a limited period. The bill also says that the minimum age of a person who can supervise a child in a workplace is 18 years. It is not saying that the manager cannot be a 16-year-old, but the manager or the person responsible must be an adult for the purposes of supervising a child for that limited period of time.

The bill also makes some significant changes with regard to compliance. The first area of note is that the bill changes the penalty structure throughout the act, and the penalties have been broadly increased from 100 penalty units for a body corporate to 1200 and from 60 penalty units for all other cases to 240. That has been done in line with the Worker Screening Act. So the penalties have been increased, but what the bill is doing at the same time as an increase in penalties is bringing in a sliding scale of punishment that can be afforded for breaches of the act. Currently under the act, if an employer breaches the act—that is, in terms of employing a child under the age of 15 without a permit—they are either in breach of the act or not in breach of the act, and if they are in breach of the act, the only option available to the child employment officer is to prosecute that business in line with a direct prosecution under the act. There are potentially no other options to actually deal with a breach of the act. Some businesses set out to break the law, but a range of businesses, particularly small businesses, may do it without necessarily seeking to break the law; they identify later that they have broken a law for whatever reason.

This bill is going to introduce powers for a compliance notice and an infringement notice to be introduced, and I think that is inherently sensible because it enables a business to receive a compliance notice or an infringement notice to desist or to receive a fine for undertaking activities which are in breach of the act. Clearly, then, if that business either is undertaking activities that grossly breach the act or continues to breach the act after the issuing of a notice, then it is open for greater penalties to be sought for offences under this act. This is going to be achieved as part of substituting the current child employment officers with authorised officers, and the work will be undertaken through Wage Inspectorate Victoria. I certainly believe that that is a better option for all parties. It is a better option, potentially, for the child. It is a better option obviously for the business but also for the authorised officer, because what it does is it provides the authorised officer the opportunity to work with a business to overcome a problem, as opposed to strictly having to apply a punitive approach. I would certainly hope that as part of the rollout the government adopts a reasonable approach—one of education as well as enforcement. If a business chooses to break the law and makes the decision to undertake activities that endanger children—makes the decision to expose a child to activities which are inappropriate given the age of the child—then I do not think anyone has a problem with the book being thrown at that business. But for others that have breached the act but not done so knowing the full implications of what they have done, this will actually provide a sliding scale. That I believe is going to provide a far more appropriate way of enforcement under the provisions of this act.

The licensing provisions of the bill, the new requirements for supervision during the casting or audition process and also the expanded coverage of not-for-profit entities under this bill are set to commence on 1 July 2023, and the remaining provisions of the bill will come into effect on the day after the day on which the bill receives royal assent. Certainly from the opposition’s perspective we do not oppose the bill that is before the house. As I have said, there has been broad support—or there have not been, more importantly, specific concerns raised about the bill—from stakeholders that I have engaged with. It is certainly about making the act contemporary to meet the current needs of Victorian industry as well as provide protections for children.

As I said, the increase in penalties being brought in line might have an adverse effect on business, but again I call on government to ensure that they engage with industry, educate industry, work with industry and work with the community to ensure there are adequate protections and there is adequate information and adequate understanding across the community as to the role of these new child employment laws.

The employment of children is still important, particularly in the entertainment industry and other areas of the state. It is imperative that we provide a regime that provides the opportunity for businesses to rightly employ children, but equally we need to protect children. It is about finding that balance. I think historically the Child Employment Act has found the balance. The bill before the house makes changes to ensure that it is contemporary but still continues to deliver the protections for children whilst affording those Victorian businesses with the opportunity to employ children, and with that I wish the bill a speedy passage.

Ms HUTCHINS (Sydenham—Minister for Crime Prevention, Minister for Corrections, Minister for Youth Justice, Minister for Victim Support) (12:36): I rise to speak on this bill, which amends the Child Employment Act 2003. I acknowledge that the opposition is not opposing this and welcome these amendments that are being brought forward by the Minister for Industrial Relations and Treasurer, which regulate when and how children under 15 can work. This bill continues the government’s exceptional record of protecting workers whatever their age and whatever background they come from.

The act sets out not only age but the type of work and conditions that apply to child employment, and it aims to protect children from doing work that could be harmful for them not just physically but psychologically as well. It also takes into consideration their attendance at school and protection of the child from exploitation, which we know all too often can unfortunately happen, particularly for the youngest workers out there. We know that when workers are empowered and they feel supported and safe, they, their families and their employers can all thrive.

Before I move on to the specifics of the bill I just want to reflect on some of the transformative changes that this government has brought about to improve the rights of workers here in Victoria, which is undeniably a factor in the ongoing strength and resilience of our economy. Victorians who work in casual and other insecure jobs will no longer be forced to choose between a day’s pay and looking after their health, thanks to our government’s initiative of the Victorian sick pay guarantee, which was introduced this year. This is a nation-leading sick pay guarantee pilot scheme for casuals and contract workers, making sure that workers in casualised industries do not have to choose between their health and a day’s pay.

We know that in this act in particular the employment of children under 15 is primarily regulated through a permit system. Children aged 11 and over can undertake delivery work where their employer obtains a general industry permit, similar to children aged 13 and over that are able to be employed under general industry permits. There is a lot in this legislation to unpack in terms of not only the permit system itself but also definitions, and amendments in this bill go to clarifying that children providing babysitting services and other domestic services are not covered by the act. It extends tutoring to outside of residential premises so that if it is occurring in places like local libraries, where my own son attended tutoring, or other premises, they will not be covered. It removes the exclusion for door-to-door fundraising, a really important step forward, and it excludes children who appear in the background of news, current affairs and lifestyle shows and documentaries—in their little 15 minutes of fame—as well.

But we know that many of these permits are actually put in place for situations to do with acting and productions, and that is why it is really important that we clarify and make the licensing system simple for employers and families to understand but also, very importantly, make sure that the Wage Inspectorate Victoria, which is another fantastic initiative that was introduced by this government to protect all workers, now has an opportunity, through new sections 18AF and 18AG of this bill, to be able to vary or cancel a permit where exploitation has occurred or there has been non-compliance. They can actually go in and work on improving that situation and making recommendations whilst the permit is cancelled. The wage inspectorate itself, since it was established in 2018, has really been there to protect the most vulnerable in our workforce and to ensure compliance across the board with employment conditions but also to ensure that rates of pay are very much abided by.

These changes in the bill today build upon the success of the work of that independent inspectorate, which will be responsible for those employers who do not take the rights of children seriously when they are at work. Late last year I was really pleased to launch the youth employment justice report, a significant body of work undertaken by the wonderful people at Westjustice detailing the challenges facing young people in the workplace. The report reiterated the challenges facing young people and how unprecedented some of the levels of underpayment are and how hard it is for even more vulnerable young people, particularly from CALD communities. Westjustice found that young people are commonly victims of wage theft and unsafe work, with discrimination and exploitation especially for those in the workforce in hospitality, for young women and, as I have mentioned, those from CALD backgrounds.

Of 106 young people who received support from the youth employment justice project between 2019 and 2021, 70 per cent needed assistance regarding wage theft, 22 per cent required assistance for unlawful dismissal and 31 per cent were seeking general advice around what their workplace rights were. Of the young people involved in this project, 71 per cent were involved in some form of risky or insecure work, leading to poor employment outcomes. It is just so hard to stand up for your rights in the workplace when you are in insecure work, when you are young and when you do not have the work or life experience to be able to speak up—and quite often if they do speak up, it does come at a cost. As well there was a lack of understanding of employment laws and processes and more general barriers, and for some very young people that are new arrivals to our country, sometimes language can be a barrier.

The challenges are multifaceted. They require both cultural and legislative change. This bill will see the introduction of a streamlined child employment licensing system. This improves on the requirements currently underway. This new system will support employers to apply for one licence to employ multiple children rather than applying for individual permits. This bill will streamline the process and make it easier for employers to comply with regulations. The requirements under a licence will be greater where the risk to children is higher. I think that is a really important aspect of this. Work that is low risk will have fewer licensing obligations, and there will be a proportionate system to make sure that employers respond well to the risks that children may face in the workplace.

We know that lots of children and young people get great benefit from working part-time. For many it can bring a sense of identity and purpose as well as giving them greater financial independence. It can also connect children with different parts of the community and reduce isolation and challenges that they may face in life. Through my time as Minister for Crime Prevention I have seen how meaningful work can bring about a positive change to the lives of so many young vulnerable Victorians. I recently joined my colleague Sheena Watt from the other place to hear about a great program that is being run by the Brotherhood of St Laurence and Jesuit Social Services called Step into Training and Employment which targets young people from public housing to help plan their careers and find a job. I was struck by how young people spoke about their work as a way of helping not only themselves but their whole families. Whilst many of those who had been connected through the program were 18, it was clear to me that young people often need support in getting started in the world of work, and that is often overlooked by programs.

Because work is not without its pressures and challenges, part-time employment must be balanced against a child’s educational development and the need for additional safeguards due to vulnerability in the workplace. This is especially true for young people who might be experiencing other vulnerabilities. I sat down recently with the Centre for Multicultural Youth, Swinburne University and the member for Hawthorn to hear about a project through our Building Safer Communities Fund which helps Pasifika young people engage in both education and employment. They talked about the pressures that young people face to start helping their families at a very young age to gain income for the family to survive. This is underscored by many other pressures to take on dangerous work.

This bill is extremely important in protecting young people, in protecting kids. It introduces a streamlined employment licensing system to replace the individual permit system. It simplifies the process, it enhances child protection, it improves overall employment regimes for children and, most importantly, it allows the wage inspectorate to cover and investigate children at work.

Mr D O’BRIEN (Gippsland South) (12:46): I am pleased to rise to say a few words on the Child Employment Amendment Bill 2022. From what I can see from the legislation, looking at the second-reading speech and the work done by the member for Ferntree Gully on the legislation from the opposition’s point of view, this is largely sensible legislation that does certainly attempt to streamline and reduce red tape, and I think that is a good thing. I guess I contrast that with some other pieces of legislation we have seen over the years, where this government has made things too difficult both for workers and for employers. But this does seem to strike the right balance from what I can see, with a couple of riders that I might put on that a little bit later.

This bill, I guess, reflects as best it can a modern working arrangement while maintaining the ability for children to get employment. We are thankfully well past the days of sending six-year-olds down the coalmines, at least in this country, and that is definitely a good thing. But as previous speakers have indicated, the importance of children being able to get experience in the workplace is vital. I can only reflect on my own experience as a teenager getting my first couple of jobs. They were critical—although I might add that perhaps the very first one that I got highlights the need for some of the safety measures in this bill. My older brother was a stock agent, and my first pay cheque ever was going to help him out in the saleyards on sale days with cattle sales—

A member interjected.

Mr D O’BRIEN: In Sale, yes; that is right. I went to help out in the school holidays in the saleyards. You get up at 4 o’clock in the morning, weighing cattle, moving them from pen to pen. It is hard work; it is actually dangerous work. Indeed despite the warnings from the other stock agents about making sure that you hold the gate with both hands when you swing it behind the pen of cattle, I still got whacked, as they often do. Some steers kicked the gate as I tried to close it, and the gate collected me right on the noggin and sent me across the other side of the race, which I guess highlights the importance of having some risk-based arrangements in this sort of legislation to ensure that where there is a higher risk children are protected. I was fine, of course, but to my great surprise in doing that casual work in my school holidays, which I just thought was for a bit of fun, I actually got my very first pay cheque from a man by the name of Peter Foster, who was a great fella. He gave me a receipt, a pay invoice, which to this day I have still got. It was for $70 for casual wages, and as about a 14-year-old boy I thought all of my Christmases had come at once—that I had got this first pay cheque. It was just fantastic. It was not a pay cheque, it was cash. It was 70 bucks, and it was the best thing—

Mr Riordan interjected.

Mr D O’BRIEN: I think it did come in a little brown envelope, member for Polwarth. I think it actually did. It was great.

A member interjected.

Mr D O’BRIEN: No. In those days of course you measured value in CDs, so it was how many CDs you could buy. I could get 2.2 CDs for my 70 bucks or something.

A member interjected.

Mr D O’BRIEN: I am a young fella, yes. But it was a great experience, and it led not long after to getting a part-time job at Pizza Hut in Traralgon. The Traralgon Pizza Hut literally was the busiest in the state—with what was called London Stores down here in Bourke Street Mall. For that period of time it was one of the busiest in the state.

A member interjected.

Mr D O’BRIEN: Well, of course, the oil on the pizza has ruined all my good looks, because the acne was terrible—but anyway. Working at Pizza Hut was a fantastic experience. I know people have varying experiences working in a fast-food store as a teenager, but mine was just brilliant. We had a great crew of people. I would work probably two or three nights a week and then a Friday or a Saturday or a Sunday afternoon shift. It was always a contest to see who got the most hours each week. But it was a great experience teaching me, as the member for St Albans said a moment ago, and giving me the ability to see more of my community and how it works, the ability to learn a bit of responsibility, the confidence that it can give someone in getting their first job and learning about teamwork. At Pizza Hut we had several different teams—front of house, back of house—and I was making pizzas. It is about learning direction from a boss, learning how chains of command work and all of those things. And of course having your own money as a teenager is obviously the main reason that young kids do it. I certainly enjoyed that time.

I think making sure that we have the balance right between protecting children, enabling businesses to employ children where necessary and where appropriate and then making sure that children are protected in a workplace safety sense but also in an industrial relations sense is really good. I must say, in reading this bill I was not surprised that the research that the government undertook indicated that there was a widely but wrongly held belief that children are able to be employed from 14 years and nine months, because since the time I was employed at Pizza Hut that is what I thought the rule was. So it was interesting to hear that and to know that that has changed. What the bill does with respect to the child employment permit system is, I think, a positive. At the moment you have those businesses that want to employ someone under the age of 15 having to have a permit for each individual child. The bill is changing that to a licensing system that allows them to be licensed and to have two different people in two new key roles: the nominated officer and the employer representative with respect to the entertainment licence. This is going to make things a lot easier. There will be businesses who will have dozens, if not hundreds, of permits now for individual children, and being able to get a licence for their business will make things easier. Maintaining a general industry licence so that you have the entertainment and the general industry licence will be a good thing.

The bill also updates the definition of ‘employment’, which provides some greater clarity, noting that the way children are employed and remunerated often is different to those in the wider workforce, so that is good. Importantly there is no change to the ability of children to work in a family business—that remains important—including on a family farm. They continue to be able to do that without needing a permit or licence provided they are directly supervised. The one change in this respect in the legislation is to ensure that the minimum age of a person supervising a child under 15 must be 18, and that is appropriate. There will be circumstances, I appreciate, where an older teenager might be able to run the milk bar with their younger sibling, so that will cause a few issues, but they will be minor. Generally having an adult around to supervise in those low-risk sectors in particular does make some sense.

The other aspect where I think this is a good change in the legislation is with respect to compliance and basically providing new authorised officers—so substituting child employment officers with authorised officers is the change intended in the bill—with the expanded opportunity to issue compliance or infringement notices. While normally you would not find us supporting strengthening those things as a general principle, in the circumstance where the only option now for child employment officers is to undertake a prosecution, this is actually a good move forward because it allows for a less costly approach and a less confrontational approach not just for businesses but for the government as well. That is a good thing. A less adversarial process and the opportunity for infringement or compliance notices to be issued is a good step, so that is a positive. As I said, overall in this bill that is good.

The only issue that I will raise as a potential concern is, as I mentioned, the risk-based changes with respect to licensing systems. The devil will be in the detail of that, and I think we need to make sure that there is not an onerous amount of red tape or paperwork in doing that, particularly for those lower risk industries. I appreciate the intention is to make sure that there is an easier process with less requirements in the lower risk industries and sectors, but I would hope that it is not over the top. That is where I have probably one cause for concern, or reserve the position I guess, to see how that comes out. But overall, I agree with the minister’s comments that there are clear social benefits and clear economic benefits for children to be in the workplace, and I hope that this bill does indeed strike the right balance.

Mr FREGON (Mount Waverley) (12:56): I rise to add my contribution on the Child Employment Amendment Bill 2022, and I happily follow on from the member for Gippsland South, who I have just learned was also a junior Pizza Hut worker back in the day, so we have that in common. Obviously in my case it was the—

A member: It didn’t affect your hair.

Mr FREGON: Well, it is getting there, mate. It is getting there.

A member interjected.

Mr FREGON: No, no. Ferntree Gully was the Pizza Hut in question. It is no longer there—but back in the good old days.

Mr D O’Brien interjected.

Mr FREGON: Well, there you go. So this is good law. It is very gratifying to hear that the opposition will not be opposing it. One may always wish to hear the word ‘supporting’, but we will keep working on that, and it is good to hear some positive comments from the other side on this. I also acknowledge and congratulate the Treasurer in his role as the Minister for Industrial Relations in the work that he and his department have done in this area and the Wage Inspectorate Victoria. We have not had a significant review of the Child Employment Act 2003 in 10 years, and this is worthy of being done to keep our children safe in any employment that they are in, in relation to it being appropriate.

As I said, apart from my early years at Pizza Hut, I grew up in a family business. It is encouraging to see that there are exemptions for family businesses in this law. For many small and family businesses, like my parents’, children grow up in the business. Whether it was a pharmacy like in my case or a fish and chip shop, a milk bar or the local small retailer, on Friday nights, Saturdays and Sundays that is where the kids used to be. I grew up, like many people, assisting from a young age with what I could. I do not think I was getting paid in dollars—probably more like peppermints, barley sugar and jelly beans; I was never a fan of the black ones, but my sister took those. It is important that our kids, when possible, get an opening to working life in a productive and a positive way. So having laws around the employment of children—and I appreciate that we are speaking for the most part here of those aged 12 to 15—is important to make sure that that is protected.

I have had some conversations with the local taekwondo club that I am a member of, and they and a lot of martial arts clubs have a habit of associating younger members of the club in roles of instruction. It is a very important part of those juniors’ progression.

Sitting suspended 1.00 pm until 2.01 pm.

Business interrupted under sessional orders.