inclu" r1
under common law, or state or federal anti-discrimination laws. By way of example, to proceed with a commonlaw claim for reasonable notice an employee will have to show the notice provided on termination was not reasonable in all the circumstances, taking into account such factors as the length of employment, seniority or pay level. Employees claiming discrimination will have to demonstrate they are being sacked because of their age, impairment, parental status or status as a carer. It will be much harder for the majority of Australian workers to seek legal redress. I would also argue that the litigation process through the respective courts and tribunals will be far more time-consuming, costly and protracted. Howard insists that ending unfair dismissal will not cause 'the skies to fall in' or 'the walls to come crashing down'; that it will have a fairly minimal effect on ordinary Australian workers, but will benefit Australian employers and employees by promoting greater workplace flexibility and employment opportunities. Whether that actually happens is yet to be seen. What is clear is that the changes will remove a central plank of protection for ordinary Australian workers. For them workplace flexibility will mean job insecurity. T HE KEY BENEFIT OF the existing laws is that they protect workers from being dismissed in a 'harsh, unjust or unreasonable' way. Employers who act in this way are held accountable before the law, affording workers a modicum of protection from an unscrupulous employer. Simply by their existence, the laws protect the vast majority of employees: employers know that if they act capriciously they could face a claim for unfair dismissal. This gives the vast majority of Australian workers much needed protection and a certain measure of job security. The clear winners under the Government's proposed changes will be employers who run businesses with fewer than 100 employees, although even they may well find they were better off under the existing laws, which in the main provided a relatively speedy, cost effective and efficient way of resolving claims. The clear losers will be the 95 per cent of Australian workers protected by the existing laws, particularly those who will not have any legal avenues of redress either at common law or under state or federal anti-discrimination laws. In the main they will be relatively unskilled or low-paid workers who have limited tenure with their current employer. Unscrupulous employers will be able to hire, for example, unskilled younger or older workers or recently arrived refugees, pay them the minimum wage, and get rid of them when they like without providing a reason. Howard says the effect of the new laws will not be felt immediately. He is probably right. The most vulnerable workers may well find that, over time, their position will become more precarious; and that under the new 'flexibility', being repeatedly hired and laid off makes it extremely difficult for them to obtain the necessary finance to buy a house. That would widen the divide in our society between the relatively well off and the marginalised. The impact this will have on social cohesion is difficult to predict but one would imagine it could only make things worse. The costs of the Howard Government's new legislation to scrap unfair dismissal laws will take some time to become apparent. As the current Act says, its principal object is to ensure that all parties, employers and employees, are given 'a fair go all round'. The new laws will extinguish the fair go for employees seeking legal redress. Where this leads our society, no one can say. One can say, however, given the way successive Australian governments have consistently denied outsiders such as asylum seekers and refugees a 'fair go all round', it was only a matter of time before the Howard Government decided it could treat insiders the same way. • Nicholas Dunstan is a lawyer specialising in employment law at Galbally & O'Bryan in Melbourne. He worked as a legal officer for the Jesuit Refugee Service in Sydney (1992), Bangkok (1997), and Phnom Penh ( ~2000). • Rest Time • Be Nu rtu red to ... • Be Free • Play • Pray • Share New Ideas ReJax d wttll-Go - and - Minister to Yourself SAT Sabbatical Program Self-contained, free and fl ex ible modules are spec ifically designed to as sist individuals to integ.rate theology, spirituali ty, human devel opment and ministry with their li,·ed ex peri ence. Four-month and Nine-month prOj:,'l'ams SAT • School of Applied Theology Graduate Theological Union 2400 Ridge Road • Berkeley C.-\ 94709 1-800-831-0555.510-652-1651 email satgtu