Mr BEVIS (1:10 PM) —Australian workers have found themselves under attack from two sources in recent years. The principal source of that attack comes from this government's legislation: legislation that seeks to deny them the right to collective bargaining and collective representation; legislation which, in the few weeks of sitting since the last election, has seen attempts to deny some 2½ million workers access to unfair dismissal laws; legislation that seeks to remove superannuation from those matters able to be dealt with by the industrial commission; and, of course, legislation on junior rates of pay which seeks to override an industrial commission hearing being conducted at this time by virtue of an act of this parliament.

The second major source of concern for Australian workers is the practice we saw during the waterfront dispute with the Patrick company—and with some others—whereby companies go into insolvency and cease to have money to pay their employees, but in fact the people associated with the companies and who control the financial interests of those companies indeed do have the wherewithal to meet the obligations to workers. But, rather than meet those obligations, they use a system of legal contrivances to establish other shelf companies and avoid their obligations.

The Employment Security Bill 1999 , which I present to the parliament today, is aimed squarely at that problem. It is aimed at ensuring that workers' entitlements to pay, to accumulated leave and to other financial entitlements are actually provided to them notwithstanding the legal contrivances that some employers are willing to go to. I hasten to add that this is a small problem in terms of the number of employers who engage in this sort of activity, but we saw a very high profile example of this very thing with the Patrick stevedoring firm in a process and a campaign that was certainly aided and supported by this government.

The workers in that situation believed themselves to be employed by the same employer. They believed themselves to be employed by a company that had contracts to provide stevedoring services. It was only when the matter was unravelled in the courts that they and the rest of the Australian public discovered that the Patrick company had established shelf companies and had shifted the employment of those people to those shelf companies, and those workers found themselves employed by shelf companies that had no capacity to pay their wages and accrued leave entitlements.

This sort of contrivance, this artificial arrangement, entered into expressly to avoid obligations to employees has no place in the decent and proper management of industrial relations in this country. Regrettably, the current law allows it to occur. The bill I present to the parliament today will ensure that, in those circumstances in which an associated company is able to meet the obligations of its bankrupt affiliate, it does so and that the workers' entitlements to wages are met.

Obviously not every company that goes into liquidation participates in these sorts of contrivances. There are many enterprises led by good people who, for one reason or another, find themselves on hard times and unable to continue. But we have seen a spate of cases where companies have gone into receivership owing very substantial sums of money to Australian workers, and I want to mention a couple of those.

At the Woodlawn mine, 160 workers lost $6 million in entitlements. At the Grafton meatworks, 250 workers lost $3 million. In Rockhampton and Yeppoon, 157 hospital workers lost $1.4 million. In Sizzler restaurants, 2,000 workers lost $2 million in entitlements. Of course, we had workers from Cobar coming here and 270 of them lost some $6 million in entitlements. We as a parliament have a responsibility to ensure that workers' entitlements are honoured and that artificial contrivances of business people in cahoots with smart lawyers and accountants do not deprive them of those rights.

This bill will fulfil that role. I commend it to the House. It is a pity that a bill of a similar form was not debated by this parliament, although it was moved by my colleague Mr McMullan in the last parliament. I urge the government to accept this bill and bring on a debate. (Time expired)

Mr BEVIS —by leave—I present the explanatory memorandum of the Employment Security Bill 1999 .

Bill read a first time.

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) —In accordance with standing order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting Thursday.