Mr MURPHY (10:30 PM) —In a monumental triumph of insensitivity last week, the Hon. Peter Reith, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, swanned into this House, resplendent in a tuxedo and bow tie, knocking over Australian workers. Specifically, he entered this chamber at 10.15 p.m. on Tuesday, 1 December and proceeded to gag the debate on the very important Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 . Some 23 members of this House, who were scheduled to speak on the bill, were denied the opportunity by the minister. He knocked over the bill, he gagged debate, he denied democratic process, he insulted the working class—by both appearance and attitude—and his arrogance was as audible as it was visible. The whole repute of this House has been brought into disgrace by his unfair attitude to a very important bill for Australian workers. Little wonder they and their families are insecure; they are certainly not relaxed and comfortable.

The proposed amendments contained in the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 fundamentally compromise the integrity of the Workplace Relations Act in two main respects: first, they seek to exclude new employees, other than apprentices and trainees of businesses with 15 or fewer employees, from federal unfair dismissal laws; and, second, they seek to establish a six-month qualifying period of employment for new employees, other than trainees or apprentices waiting to use the unfair dismissal regime.

Let us not mince words: this bill demonstrates nothing less than an overt attempt by the federal government to follow a most disturbing trend in the administration of justice in the states and territories of Australia, namely, the reductionist tendency in their ever shrinking jurisdictional responsibilities; that is, the federal government has seen fit to sacrifice a significant percentage of unfairly dismissed workers from the most vulnerable sectors of the work force for the sake of cost reductions in the administration of justice within its industrial relations jurisdiction.

Let us look at the impact of this legislation. First, figures supplied by Mr Reith's department for the period January to August 1998 show that about 46 per cent of a total of about 11,074 unfair dismissal claims were lodged in the federal system. Second, departmental figures also show that only about 35 per cent of federal claims lodged between December 1997 and September 1998 related to businesses employing 15 or fewer persons. Third, for 1998, if present trends continue, there will be about 16,000 unfair dismissal claims lodged nationally, of which about 7,500 will come before the federal tribunal. Of the likely 7,500 claims, about 2,500 will be made against employers employing fewer than 16 staff.

In terms of the proposed six-month exemption, about 1.2 million of the 8.4 million persons in work, as at February 1998, had been in their current job for less than six months. The real intention of this legislation is simple: to reduce costs in the Federal Court and the Industrial Relations Commission through delimiting their jurisdictions. This trick has been applied in other state and federal jurisdictions. For example, similar reductionist methods were employed in both workers compensation and personal junior motor vehicle claims so as to delimit their jurisdiction. But at what cost? The above figures demonstrate the high percentage of persons who have held their present employment for less than six months. Further, those employees with firms employing fewer than 16 staff, 2,500 anticipated applicants, will not be eligible to lodge claims.

These proposed exemptions are both inequitable and unnecessary. They are in conflict with Australia's obligations at international law. These proposed amendments are inequitable because they will leave a significant section of the work force without basic protections enjoyed by workers in medium and large firms. Further, it may be argued that the proposed changes will have only a marginal impact on the viability of small businesses. This bill assumes that the larger the firm, the greater the capacity to pay. This is simply untrue. With the significant percentage of workers in small firms, this bill unduly denies such employees rights afforded under the workplace relations legislation. The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business notes:

Early figures from the Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business comparing the period January-August 1997 (under the Reith law) with the January-August 1996 period (under the last version of the Keating law) showed a national decline of about 20 per cent in the number of unfair/unlawful dismissal applications lodged. Similarly, the number of applications in the federal jurisdiction fell from 9,864 in January-August 1996 to 4,492 in January-August 1997. Later figures, comparing the first six months of 1998 with the first six months of 1996, show that the general decline in applications in the federal system had been sustained with a fall of about 46 percent over the comparable period in 1996.

Two reasons for these amendments stand out: first, cost cutting in the Federal Court and commission and, second, figures showing the number of unfair dismissal claims arbitrated on the merits between December 1996 and October 1998 showed that 75 per cent of the 722 matters determined were decided in favour of the employee applicant.

It has been argued that a major justification for these amendments is the spurious nature of many of the unfair dismissal claims. I put it to this House that the fact that 75 per cent of the 722 claims went in favour of the employees strongly demonstrates that those claims are unjustified. There is also the issue of Australia's international obligations under the International Labour Organisation Convention on the Termination of Employment 1982. Australia ratified this treaty on 26 February 1993. I bring to this House's attention article 2(5), which states:

In so far as necessary, measures may be taken by the competent authority or through the appropriate machinery in a country . . . to exclude from the application of this Convention or certain provisions thereof other limited categories of employed persons in respect of which special problems of a substantive nature exist. . .

The broad exclusions contained in the proposed amendments go beyond the convention's provisions. The bill's amendments go too far. Given the large number of employees excluded by the proposed amendments, it is clear that this bill fundamentally compromises the spirit of article 2(5).

I conclude that the provisions of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 are anathema to the equitable operation of industrial law as it applies to federal jurisdiction. The possibility of similar provisions following our lead in state jurisdictions means that there is increasing likelihood that the damage from this bill may be replicated in other jurisdictions. For the benefit of all Australian workers and their families, let us hope the Senate brings justice.