That commitment and the impact of COVID-19 on people's ability to find ongoing employment gives us another important reason to consider the practical impact of the distinction between casual and permanent employees.

The raw data tells us of the scale of job losses we have witnessed in the wake of COVID-19, with the unemployment rate reaching historic levels and casual workers being hit hardest.

Recent data also indicates casuals are finding it much harder to re-enter the workforce as the economic rebound kicks in.

While many casuals are in fact permanent employees operating under casual conditions, there remains very important differences such as the absence of a contract, no notice period, no guarantee of work and no pay if you don't work.

Being paid only for hours worked is probably the distinction that has greatest impact on casual workers and their families, particularly seasonal workers including everyone from hospitality staff through to school bus drivers.

Leave loading for casuals does not now and probably never did provide adequate compensation for not enjoying several weeks of paid leave per year as permanent staff do and it certainly leaves casuals in a dire position during prolonged periods of unemployment as we have seen during the COVID pandemic and as its effects continue to be felt.

It is time we eliminated this unnecessary and counterproductive distinction and levelled the playing field between casuals and permanent staff, which would improve productivity and increase employment opportunities in key sectors of the economy.

More importantly, it would mean casual staff and their families could look forward to a break from work rather than seeing holidays as a simply a time when they don't have an income.

Achieving parity should be a relatively simple process and can be done, at least initially, without legislation.

The option should exist for employers and their casual staff to enter into a contractual agreement whereby the employer offers the employee the opportunity to sacrifice a portion of the wage to be held by the employer, to be paid out to the employee during times of leave.

In the same way staff are incentivised to build up their superannuation, employers could match the amount the employee decides to contribute to their holiday pay, at minimum on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

All monies held on behalf of the employee would earn interest which would accrue to the employee and unspent contributions could be rolled over up to an agreed limit and if that limit is reached, all or a portion of the accumulated funds are paid out or, by agreement, paid into the nominated superannuation fund.

The federal government's role would be to ensure proper oversight and that the funds are properly managed and the terms of the governing agreements are adhered to.

The option to co-contribute would always be open to government.

The benefits of such a scheme are self-evident and a rare opportunity exists for corporate Australia to take the initiative and establish a scheme which, rarer still, will positively impact the bottom lines of both employer and employee.

As the economic recovery begins, it is vital we ensure the recovery is for all Australian workers, not just a portion of them.

If we don't, we take a major step down the path towards the experience in the United States - an entrenched, class-based workforce split between the middle class and the working poor.

The economic and social consequences of replicating that national tragedy here would be far harder to remedy and more long lasting than COVID-19 or any of the pandemics of the future.

Whether it's COVID, SARS or influenza, viruses - and the sometimes devastating toll their existence from time to time wreaks - will become an increasingly frequent fact of life as we try and fit ever more of us in a geographic space which is as finite as it was 5000 years ago.

These days, the problems we can solve before they begin are too good to pass up.