Mr MARTIN(9.49 p.m.) —It is a pleasure to speak in the debate on the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill tonight. In my role as the shadow minister for small business, I have to say to my good friend and colleague, the member for La Trobe (Mr Charles), that I, like he, have been doing a lot of travelling around—not only in my electorate but around Australia—talking to small businesses, and I have been trying to get a handle on the sorts of issues which are of concern to them. As part of that, I have been trying to make an assessment of where the unfair dismissal issue fits in their perceptions, as distinct from the realities of the circumstances facing small business.

I know it will be unpleasant for the member for La Trobe to hear this, but the simple fact is that the sorts of issues that you talked about and the concerns that the employers in your electorate have about putting people on can be cleared up very simply: with economic growth and more customers coming into their shops. That is the very simple equation which any small business person will tell you.

Do not forget that, when we talk about small business, we are talking about a business with fewer than 20 employees. If we are talking about primary producers or slightly larger manufacturing operations, there can be 100 members or fewer under the ABS definition. If we are talking about micro-businesses in Australia, we are talking about businesses with one or two people—often family members. That is about 60 to 70 per cent of people who are in the small business sector of the Australian economy. Guess what? They do not have these problems because if there was a problem—

Mr Charles —But they don't employ anybody.

Mr MARTIN —Exactly. They do not employ anybody because they are related to each other. There are mums and dads or their children in there. If there is a blue on, it is not going to end up in the Industrial Relations Commission—it is going to end up in the Family Court. I am disappointed that my friend the member for La Trobe is scurrying out the door because I wanted to raise a couple of very important points here.

What we are doing tonight is debating amendments to the Howard government's own legislation. What the Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) says in the media or in this place, making reference to Laurie Brereton's unfair dismissal laws or the Keating government's unfair dismissal laws or industrial relations laws, is garbage. They are gone. They were swept away last year, and my friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs (Mr Abbott), who is at the table, knows that that is the case. He knows that last year his government, with the support of the Democrats in the other place, got rid of the Keating laws in respect of industrial relations and unfair dismissal. They got rid of the industrial relations laws, which they still talk about as being Laurie Brereton's laws.

The laws that operate in this country now are the Howard-Reith industrial relations laws—not ours. They have nothing to do with us. We tried to knock them over in the Senate and we got done because you had a deal with the Democrats. We accept that that is the case. We might not like it but nevertheless they are there.

What we have tonight are propositions coming before this House suggesting that their own laws, which operated at the start of this year, should be changed. Why? Why is this necessary? Why is unfair dismissal such a flavour of the month, particularly in respect to small business? You have to have a bit of a memory in politics. You have to hark back to when the old Prime Minister (Mr Howard) went on the Sunday program and started to talk about this sort of business. Why did he do that? Could it have been because there were a few problems on his side of politics with ministers and parliamentary secretaries? I think it was.

Every time this government gets into strife the Prime Minister ends up on the Sunday program making announcements that none of the rest of his front bench or government know anything about. This was one of them. He went on and said, `For small businesses of less than 15 employees we are going to eliminate the application of unfair dismissal laws to them.' But that was not good enough.

Charlie Bell had delivered a report about what small business really wanted. He didn't mention unfair dismissal other than to say, `The laws have only been there for five minutes, leave them in place and let's have a review in 12 months time.' But that was not good enough for this Prime Minister, who has always been very gung-ho in industrial relations. He has always liked to kick the workers when they are down; the true battlers' friend—you know what he is like. The Prime Minister said, `We'll up the ante a touch. We'll now sweep away all of our own industrial relations laws when it comes to unfair dismissal for every small business.' And they were supposed to throw their hands up and cheer.

The honourable member for La Trobe talked about perceptions. The problem is perception. The problem is that because this government does not tell the truth to people in the small business community—that it is their laws that now apply, whether they be in workplace relations or small business or unfair dismissal—they have it in their minds that there are all these problems that are going to develop. But the simple fact is that under the Howard-Reith industrial relations laws of this country as they stand at the minute—and this is quite relevant—an employer can let an employee go in their first three months of employment without unfair dismissal laws applying.

Sorry, what does that mean? Does that not mean that in the first three months of employment if somebody does not work out—and I would suggest that any employer within three months is going to know whether an employee is going to work out in that particular small business—you can let them go? The member for La Trobe should be here to hear that. He was regaling us with stories of people all around the place—women who would not clean up with a Hoover vacuum cleaner or whatever on their first day of employment. Under the laws now you can let that person go if you happen to be that small business person and not have the unfair dismissal laws apply—their own unfair dismissal laws.

Where is the sense of it? Why is this being changed? As I said, Charlie Bell, Managing Director of McDonald's Australia, was asked by this government last year to head up an inquiry into small business. The Prime Minister said, `In the last election campaign we made a lot of promises on small business. We have to deliver on some of them.' He said to Charlie Bell, `Go out and do an inquiry and find out what small business really want. We had a few ideas but tell us what they really want.' A report was tabled in November last year called Time for Business.

In Charlie Bell's report, Time for Business, he went through a whole range of different things: reducing the taxation compliance burden, helping small business employers, statistical collections, streamlining government processes and regulations, and on and on he went. But in one of those, recommendation No. 13, under chapter 4 on helping small business employers, Mr Bell recommended to his Prime Minister that the revised arrangements for unfair dismissal be reviewed after 12 months of operation `to ensure that it is delivering a more balanced and flexible approach for small business'. He did not say to change or do anything about the law that they had just put in place; he said to review it in 12 months. That was what Charlie Bell recommended.

The Prime Minister, on 24 March, decided he would respond to Charlie Bell and brought down a report called More Time for Business. This is where the brainstorm came about doing away with their own industrial relations laws as applied to unfair dismissal. As my friend and colleague the shadow minister for industrial relations and member for Canberra (Mr McMullan) said, Peter Reith and John Howard—the minister and the Prime Minister—said after they had changed their own industrial relations laws, `We have swept away Labor's unfair dismissal laws.' Peter Reith said, `We have delivered a workable system for dealing with unfair dismissal on the basis of a fair go all round and, in doing so, we have expressed an overwhelming community consensus that the previous system did nothing more than stifle employment growth and create division in the workplace.' This is what this government said: that they were eliminating the laws that were in place and that everything was rosy. Yet within a few short months they were coming forward and saying that changes had to be put in place.

As I have indicated previously, when travelling around and speaking to small businesses, they have told me that what they want is growth in the economy; they have told me that what they want is more customers coming in the door; and they have told me that want they want is a bit of fairness in the system—particularly when it comes to a question of balance, a question of fair trading and a question of responding favourably to the parliamentary committee report on the whole issue of fair trading in this country. What they have said to me is that they want to eliminate unconscionable conduct, they want support for franchisees and they want, in retail tenancy situations, a decent and workable retail tenancy agreement. They have told me that what they want is the big end of town, the people who are managing shopping centres on behalf of institutional investors, to give them a fair go. That is what they have said they want.

If you go and ask these people, `What are the issues facing you?' they will tell you that these are the issues. Unfair dismissal does not rate as an important issue with them. On the other hand, if you go and say to them, `Would you like to see unfair dismissal laws changed in this country?' they will say, `Yes, of course we would.' Then if you say to them, `Well, do you realise that the industrial relations laws on unfair dismissal in Australia at the moment are the Howard-Reith laws?' they say, `Oh no, we thought they were Keating's and Brereton's.' You then say, `No, no, they were changed last year.' If you then follow that up by asking, `Do you understand that, if you let someone go within the first three months of your employing them, you are not subjected to unfair dismissal claims?' they say, `Well, no, Peter Reith, the minister for workplace relations, has not told us that; the minister for workplace relations hasn't said anything like that to us.' You then say, `Well, that's a fact. And, by the way'—you then ask—`how many employees on your staff are employed under federal awards?' And if they say none, you turn around and say to them, `Well, guess what, brothers and sisters? The laws do not apply to you, because these are federal laws applying to people on federal awards.'

If you go into shopping centres, strip shops or the corner shop where you buy your milk and bread on a Saturday morning and you ask the mums and dads who operate those sorts of things, `How many of your employees are on federal awards?' and they say none, you then turn around and say, `Well, guess what? These laws do not apply to you.' These are the exact circumstances. This is the plain truth. If the member for La Trobe wants to talk about perceptions and reality in respect of industrial relations, that is the real perception and that is the actual reality of just what is required in the business community at the present time—and how very much those perceptions of the government differ from the reality of the circumstances.

There were some questions raised too about the whole issue of employment and whether or not, by changing these laws, business will employ more—small business, particularly. Small business will go and employ more people if they know they are going to get more customers; if there is a bit of confidence in the community. They know that people are very concerned about whether in a week, a month or a year they will still have their job. Job insecurity is the issue in Australia at the present time.

I do not care if you operate the small shop on the corner to which I have referred, or you happen to be a retailer in a regional shopping centre that is managed by a Lend Lease or a Westfield or anybody else, or you happen to be a Woolworths yourself. What you want to see is an increase in retail turnover in your shop. What you want to see is confidence return to the business community. And what you want to see are the sorts of things which the fair trading inquiry report talked about.

That is what businesses in Australia want to see, particularly micro and small businesses. They will tell you that they would be prepared to hire people if some of those issues were picked up. They will tell you that, if their profitability levels were even remotely reasonable, they would be prepared to hire. They will tell you that it is nonsense being espoused—and it even came out again today in question time—about this capital gains tax rollover of $500,000. Most of the micro and small businesses would love to be able to retire with $500, let alone $5,000. You go and talk to them—talk to them about the problems they have, and see whether that is an issue of significance for them. It is not. This is what an out of touch government believes is necessary—but, in fact, it has passed this government by.

My friend the member for Canberra also talked about some of the surveys that were around as to how important unfair dismissal laws were. One I go to just briefly is the Morgan and Banks job index that was released last week and commented upon, I think, in the Courier-Mail. Under the question that was asked, `Have the federal unfair dismissal laws caused you not to hire as many new staff as you would have otherwise hired?', can you believe that, of those businesses with from zero to 30 employees—so they are the small businesses—75.6 per cent said that they were not affected at all. Seventy-five per cent of small businesses said that the unfair dismissal laws had absolutely no effect on them. So there you go—75 per cent.

Dr Kemp —So one in four, 25 per cent, of small businesses are affected by the unfair dismissal laws?

Mr MARTIN —The minister at the table, who never listens to what anybody says, should have been here a little earlier. What I said, my friend, is that micro-businesses with one or two people, often mums and dads, do not hire anybody. So they are not affected by any of this. It makes no difference. About 70 per cent of small businesses are in that category. But I will take back what I said. I know you are a listener occasionally—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —I am a listener; he is not.

Mr MARTIN —The minister is a listener, Mr Deputy Speaker. He should do a little more of that occasionally when these sorts of issues come out.

The simple fact is that, as indicated by the shadow minister, this particular piece of legislation simply is not needed. It is based on a false premise. It is based on some sort of a view that employment in small business will be increased because there will be some ability for small businesses and micro-businesses employing people under federal awards to have an opportunity to sack people and, therefore, they will be able to hire more people. Somewhere in there the logic of how that works gets lost.

The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business said today—in response to a question I put to him about when he would bring down a response to the fair trading inquiry report—that he was still out talking to a few people, he still wanted to get a view of the world, he still wanted to see some more people and talk to them and get out in the shopping centres. He should do that and do it very quickly, and he should ask those people about these sorts of issues. He should just reflect on the sorts of things which small business people really want to see.

As has been indicated previously, when it comes time to look at the rate of filings for unfair dismissal claims, whether it be now in the commission or formerly in the court, there is only one direction in which the number of those claims being lodged can go—and that is down at a massive rate. It is not the problem that this government believes it is. It is not the problem for all the sorts of reasons that I have outlined. It is not the problem for the reasons that the member for Canberra has outlined. Just simply, it is an absolute smokescreen and a nonsense for the government to come into this place today and say that their own laws needed to be changed—because these are their own laws—and that in some way the amendments being proposed here would create jobs.

The simple fact is this: this government wants to run this legislation in this place today and into the Senate in the fervent hope that it gets knocked over, because next year they will come back and run it again. When it gets knocked over again—guess what?— that will be the trigger for a double dissolution which the Prime Minister would like to have up his sleeve. He believes, like most governments have believed in the last 15 or so, that to have a Senate that is not of the same political persuasion is often something which needs to be constantly kept under review. He is probably right about that, but I do not think this is the mechanism by which he should be testing it.

Quite simply, the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1997 before the House tonight is unnecessary. Unfair dismissal is not the problem for small business that some industry associations who purport to represent small business believe it is. It is not the problem when you talk to micro-businesses in shopping centres. I do not care where the people are that you talk to, it is not the level of significant problem that this government believes it is. If people come into this place and try to tell you otherwise, they simply have been wasting their time. They should have been talking to the small businesses in their community because then they would have found out the truth.

This opposition rejects totally the reasons being advanced for this legislation being introduced. We reject it now; we will reject it in the future. We want to see that job opportunities are created in small business by the government playing proper attention to things like the fair trading inquiry report, by growing the economy and by embracing some of the industry policies which countless reports have suggested to this government they need to do. That is the way in which small business will prosper.