Mr ZAHRA (1:30 PM) —Contributions have been made by many people in this debate and I welcome the contribution made in particular by my colleagues from Victoria, the member for Melbourne Ports, the member for Gellibrand and the member for Holt. We have had a lot of discussion about some of the finer points of this Workplace Relations Amendment (Termination of Employment) Bill 2000 and what particular provisions of the bill will mean for people. I would like to cut to the guts of this and talk about what this bill means as far as I can see and as far as the impacts of its provisions would be on the working people who live in my constituency.

Basically, the provisions of the bill will destroy the conciliation process, which I think most people think is important, and make it easier for employers to sack people, in particular those employers who employ fewer than 15 or 20 people, depending on the mood of the government of the day. It will also stop workers being able to get compensation for shock, distress or humiliation if it is proven that their employer dismissed them unlawfully. I say from the outset that we have seen nothing except shocking partisanship from the government in its approach to industrial relations. What people in Australia want is a government which will govern for all Australians and will not be as aggressive and partisan as this government and, in particular, the minister for workplace relations, has proved to be in relation to this matter.

I point to this hypocrisy and give an example which I think speaks volumes for the attitude taken by the minister for workplace relations in relation to his role. For nine long months in my constituency we had a shocking lockout of around 350 meat workers at the G&K O'Connor abattoir in Pakenham. Not one word did we hear from the minister for workplace relations in relation to getting some sort of resolution to this, talking to the company about ending this dispute which meant that some 300 or 350 people in my constituency were locked out of work, were unable to get an income for that period and had their families suffering as a result of that. For nine months this took place. There was not a whisper, not a word from the Commonwealth minister for workplace relations in relation to this dispute and in particular in relation to the behaviour of the employer, G&K O'Connor.

Just a month or so ago we saw one of the weekend newspapers do a sort of profile piece on the minister for workplace relations. He talked about how `deep down inside he had thought about this company, G&K O'Connor, and he could understand what they were trying to do.' He could really relate to the company trying to have a go and that was the action they needed to take. He could really relate to it. It was something really personal to him. As I pointed out in a speech to the house last week, that company, G&K O'Connor, was the same company which was described by Justice Spender in the Federal Court as orchestrating a `baseball bat lockout' and having taken actions which were similar to an American company called Pinkertons Incorporated, which is one of the most notoriously right wing and antagonistic labour organisations—union busters—in the United States.

That is how a Justice of the Federal Court described this company's actions and yet we have the minister for workplace relations in Australia in this interview, this personal profile on him, telling people what is important to him and that he could really relate to that. He could really relate to having locked out 350 workers for nine months, depriving them of an income, depriving them of their livelihood. I have previously pointed out in this House the silent toll of that dispute. It is important to understand that silent toll when you consider the minister for workplace relations in this nice comfortable interview talking about how this was something he could really relate to.

In my constituency, there are families who have broken up as a direct result of that dispute and the pressures of that nine-month lockout instigated by the company. As a result of that action, families have broken down. As a result of the action taken by the company G&K O'Connor, some people have had to sell their house, other people have had to sell their car. Also, there are a couple of people in my constituency who are having bankruptcy proceedings brought against them as a result of that action. This is the toll of the action which the minister for workplace relations and employment in Australia thinks is not just acceptable or tolerable but which, deep down inside of him, he can really relate to and understand.

I use that as an illustration to talk about the shocking partisanship which the Howard government has brought to the area of industrial relations. I have to tell you I think they are shockingly out of touch, hopelessly out of touch, when it comes to the attitude of the business community in relation to unfair dismissal and being able to sack people more easily. I have a large constituency, as you would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I have something like 1,100 shopkeepers and small business people in my constituency. Every six months I go to see all of those small business shopkeepers. It takes about two and a half weeks of my time but I go to see everyone and ask them how they are going and how their shops and their businesses are going. Not one of those people says to me in conversation, `You know, it's going all right, but we would like to be able to sack our workers a little bit more easily. It's going all right but you see Mandy over there who has been working with us for five and a half years and who has really made a big difference to our company, we would like to be able to get rid of her. We'd like to have the option of getting rid of her.' No-one says that. It is a fiction, it is a furphy, it is a complete untruth for the government to run around saying that what small business are always telling them is they would love to be able to sack their work force more easily. It is completely untrue; it is just not an accurate reflection of what people in small business are genuinely about.

In relation to the government's claim that we would see a whole lot more people employed if we made it easier to sack people in Australia, I think we need to more closely analyse this claim. I know that many people in the government have been running around talking about this grand figure of 50,000 jobs which would be created if the Commonwealth parliament passed a law which would make it easier for people to be sacked. I have to tell you, the ordinary punters in Australia, the real people in Australia, listening to us have a serious debate, that the government wants to introduce a law which makes it easier to sack people. The same government then wants to be able to then come back and say, `We want to make it easier to sack people because it will mean more people get employed.' I think most people in Australia would think about that and say, `They have gone completely mad over there in Canberra in the federal parliament.' I think they would be right to question the truth of what the government is saying.

These are just a few quotes of what the government has said in relation to this. In a Peter Reith press release he says:

He said that on 26 July, 1998. He said in his second reading speech on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) bill 1998 on 12 November:

There are several other quotes, a few of which I will mention. Mr Reith went on to respond to a question without notice, saying:

He said this on 8 February 1999. There are probably 10 or 11 other quotes where he said almost identical things, talking about the 50,000 jobs which would be created if the Commonwealth passed a law which would make it easier for business people—employers—to sack people. It is a huge leap of logic and it demonstrates the perversity of his thinking in relation to this matter.

We need to analyse exactly where this 50,000 job figure comes from. As far as we are able to work out, it comes from the small business council of Australia once saying to the minister that it thinks around 50,000 jobs would be created if it was made easier for people to be sacked in Australia. Minister Reith, in answer to question on notice No. 107 on 10 February last year, stated:

What an amazing thing to say. We have had a minister of the Commonwealth of Australia running around quoting this 50,000 job figure on the flimsy basis of a conversation he has had with the Chief Executive of the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia. It is not as though COSBOA has done exhaustive research into this matter. It is not as though it has carried out a poll of all the small businesses in Australia, got some quantitative modellers and economists in and worked out exactly the impact this will have. He has based it on very flimsy evidence. This is not even economics 101. This is not even year 11 economics. He has based it on the fact that he thinks one in 20 small businesses would hire at least one more employee if the exclusion were to come into force.

Why not one in 10? In fact, why not one in two? This is just as possible. We may as well have asked COSBOA whether or not it thinks there would be five million jobs created as a result of our allowing the Commonwealth parliament to pass this law which will make it easier for employers to sack their staff. What a ridiculous proposition. Anyone who believes it is a mug. I do not believe that the Australian people believe it, not for a minute.

As has been pointed out by the shadow minister for industrial relations in his contribution to this debate, in relation to how important unfair dismissal law is as a consideration of whether or not small business people will employ staff, the most reasonable figures we can draw on are from the Australian workplace industrial relations survey which was conducted in 1995. This showed quite convincingly that only for a very, very small percentage of employers were the unfair dismissal laws a consideration of whether or not they would employ more staff. When asked what was important to them in their consideration of whether or not they would employ more staff, 0.9 per cent of people responded by saying they would employ more people if it were easier to sack them.

I think 0.9 per cent reflects the number of small business people who are in the Liberal Party. That is the correct correlation one can make. About 0.9 per cent of small business people are probably in the Liberal Party. That is probably why we have that figure of 0.9 per cent from when that survey was conducted in 1995. I do not think it reflects for one minute what most small business people in Australia think is the right approach to their staffing needs in their workplaces.

I mentioned earlier the importance of the conciliation process in all this. This is something which we need to protect and preserve at all costs. We need to be conscious of the impact of any action that we take in the Commonwealth parliament as it relates to people going through conciliation processes in the future.

It is worth talking about a case—Doyle v. Western Suburbs District Rugby League Football Club—which proves the importance of the conciliation process. Justice Moore said in his finding:

I think he is dead right. For those people who have an understanding of that process, it is often a very hard, confronting and, indeed, a very frank exchange which takes place in those conciliation hearings. It is a very frank exchange. I am sure that those people who have had some experience of those hearings would agree that if one were to place over the top of that process the likelihood that that discussion would be almost a court proceeding and subject to the same rules as a court, we would not have the frank exchange and the dialogue; we would not hear people stating plainly what they want and the matter would not end up getting resolved at all. That is a very genuine concern which the opposition has in relation to this proposed legislation which has been put forward by the government.

The other thing I want to mention is that we do not think it is appropriate to stop workers getting compensation if it has been proved that their employer has ended their employment unlawfully. We think they should be entitled to get compensation for shock, distress and humiliation. We are talking about a small number of people who have found themselves to be in this situation.

In terms of protecting people's rights and liberties and all of those things which we all hold dear in Australia, I think it is outrageous to suggest that people should forgo that right and not be able to claim compensation if they are found to have been unlawfully dismissed and if their employer is found to have acted in a manner which would cause them shock, distress or humiliation in the way that their dismissal has been handled—for example, if an employer dismisses someone and then insists that the police come in and escort that person from their workplace on no good basis. That person might never have been accused of theft or any of those things but the very public demonstration is that that person has committed a crime of some description and that is why that person is being dismissed. Or if any other type of humiliation is brought to bear on that employee for no good reason and the court finds that the person has been unlawfully dismissed, I think most Australians would agree that that employee should have the right to claim compensation.

In consideration of this debate, we must not forget the government's agenda to make it possible for companies which employ 15 or 20 people to be able to sack their workers and to be exempt from any of the provisions of unfair dismissal which every other worker gets access to.

I consider this outrageous. It will create two different types of citizens, two different types of workers in Australia—that is basically what the government is saying. It is saying, `Let us have one set of rules for workers in companies with more than 15 or 20 employees; let us have another set of rules for companies which have fewer than 20 workers.' This is unacceptable. Surely the rights of citizens in Australia are universal, and it should not matter at all whether a worker is employed by a company with five employees or one with 5,000 employees. Workers should have universal rights and access to the same industrial relations legislation, irrespective of the number of staff employed at their workplace.

I just make this point to those members on the government benches who represent rural and regional constituencies. There are a lot of workers—particularly in rural and regiolnal areas—who work in workplaces with fewer than 15 or 20 employees. I am pretty well known in this place as someone who supports the forest industry and the communities and workers who draw their livelihood from the forest and the forest products sector. There are a lot of timber mills which employ fewer than 15 or 20 people. It is a tough industry, and that is why workers in that industry need access to the same industrial relations legislation as those employed in city workplaces with four or five thousand people. Those workers are entitled to exactly the same rights as workers in the cities—(Time expired)