Mr HOLLIS (1:40 PM) —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, for your cooperation in assisting me to speak. Although I have great respect for the honourable member for Moore, I really did think that it was a bit rich when he claimed that the government's success at the last two elections was purely because they were proposing some reform of the unfair dismissal law. I think people voted for a whole host of reasons at the last election. Quite frankly, I think that was fairly well down on anyone's list in voting.

The Labor opposition has moved an amendment to the second reading of this legislation, urging the bill's withdrawal and redrafting. Specifically, our amendment calls for increased job security and protection from harsh, unfair or unreasonable dismissal regardless of the size of the business. We have called for ready access to a fair and independent industrial umpire and the repeal of a paragraph in the Workplace Relations Act 1996 providing protection to employees under a contract of employment for a specified period or a specified task protection from unfair, unreasonable and harsh dismissal. Those who do not believe that this happens should go into the work force occasionally and talk to some of the workers instead of only and always talking to the bosses.

The bill will exclude new employees in businesses with 15 or fewer employees from federal unfair dismissal provisions and establishes a qualifying period of six months before new employees are able to access the unfair dismissal system. The bill as proposed is a travesty. It is unfair and it is unnecessary. It has been rejected twice by this parliament. It is a fatally wounded piece of legislation and has no place coming back here for another try, and for the shallowest of purposes. Some might even see it as an election device.

Dr Martin —No!

Mr HOLLIS —I do not know, but some people may well see it that way.

Dr Martin —Whatthe trigger for a double dissolution?

Mr HOLLIS —They would be pretty brave if they went at the moment, but that is by the way. The government, under the hand of its former minister for workplace relations, could not accept this bill's defeat and, consistent with its declared policy of public policy transparency, attempted to ignore the will of the parliament and instead sought its implementation through regulation on 17 December 1998.

It cannot be said that the government is not determined. It cannot be moved for years and months on issues like petrol price relief for motorists or on red tape for small business until the ballot box starts making clear that flexibility is necessary. But, when it comes to workers' rights, the flexibility never wavers; it stands firm. The justification for introducing this bill has not deviated for two years, despite the rejection of it by the parliament. It is claimed the provisions are necessary to create 50,000 jobs, to implement the government's mandate, to ease the burden on small business and to provide a fairer balance between the rights of employers and the rights of workers.

Despite the rhetoric, in all circumstances the bill is nothing short of another attempt to strip workers of their rights—rights, I might add, to stop their unfair dismissal from employment. That is a substantial right, one might suggest. The bill creates two classes of workers with different rights. The first are able to access unfair dismissal laws and expect fair treatment in the consideration of their applications. They can do it because they have the luxury of employment in a business with more than 15 employees. The second class are denied the same access and are prevented from recourse to unfair dismissal provisions. Their alleged crime: employment by a small business. The bill also creates an exploitative loophole by allowing employers with high-priced lawyers to establish corporate entities deliberately employing fewer than 15 workers and thus permitting the employer to avoid their lawful obligations. It has happened, and we have seen example after example during the two terms of this government. The government cannot deny the possibility of this loophole being exploited because it has steadfastly refused to reform the Corporations Law to protect workers' entitlements.

The government would have us believe that unfair dismissal laws in Australia are too heavily balanced in favour of employees. Using this logic, it claims the only way to restore the balance is to take away most of the rights provided to workers in the unfair dismissal laws. The problem for the government is that it has already made amendments to unfair dismissal laws. It actually amended the former Labor government's unfair dismissal legislation vigorously. By introducing this amending bill, the government is recognising the failure of its own legislation. The government's amendments to Labor's unfair dismissal legislation are instructive. For example, it changed the onus of the burden of proof from employer to employee in confirming in an application that there was unjust, unfair or harsh treatment in the process of dismissal. This, I might suggest, was a massive change, yet the government continues the rhetoric that unfair dismissal laws are just out of balance and need to be put right. Even a law firm closely associated with the Prime Minister disagrees with the government's sentiment of the substantial benefit to employees from the current unfair dismissal legislation.

The government's initial amendments were wide ranging and substantial. Unfair dismissal laws were changed, and the balance of rights is clearly in the court of employers. With this bill the government now wishes to go a step further. In this debate about rights, as I have said, a worker's right to access an appeal process in the event of dismissal is crucial. Workers have a right to access a system where they can test their grievance against dismissal by an employer. Some employers are not virtuous and do sack workers for wrong or convenient reasons. This bill undermines that right substantially and significantly weakens the safeguard of the unfair dismissal system by locking out small business employees for six months.

It is also claimed that small business in Australia is overburdened with requirements provided by the unfair dismissal laws. Small business operators in Australia must be laughing with despair at this hypocrisy. There are just three letters that burden small businesses in Australia and they are: G-S-T. Every small business in this country is a branch of the Australian Taxation Office collecting revenue for the Howard government. They are collecting taxes for the government on goods and services and, until the backflip by the government this week, small business operators were required to complete a business activity statement four times a year. That, I suggest, is the equivalent of overtime for small business people—scratching their head, pencil at the ready, punching digits into a calculator—extra hours doing unpaid tax collection work for the government. Small businesses are branches of the tax office. Every shop in every street is a tax collector. But in the government's mind this is not a burden; they suggest it is for public service. To try to obtain redemption for this massive unprecedented tax impost on small business the government believes that whacking workers over unfair dismissal laws somehow will recoil the hostility of the small business community. Small business operators might have been fooled by the GST package peddled by the Howard government and their partners the Australian Democrats two years ago—and paid for by the taxpayers—but they now realise how conned they have been.

Like many members, I have heard stories of how unfair dismissal laws are judged a barrier to small business employing people. Indeed, I heard this view expressed at a luncheon—I think even the member for Cunningham was there—hosted during a visit by our parliamentary colleague the shadow minister for industrial relations to Wollongong last year. The view is a popular one amongst some, but ultimately it is a shallow view. I challenged that view by asking the person sitting opposite me to rate the issues preventing him from employing extra people in his business. I listened carefully and, to his credit, he was honest. Unfair dismissal laws came in on that list at No. 9. I think earlier in this debate the member for Prospect actually listed it at No. 16 in a discussion that she had. But in the discussion I had in Wollongong it came in on the list at No. 9. Above that were concerns about interest rates, payroll tax and the general state of the economy.

Similarly is the ludicrous estimation of how many jobs will be created in the small business sector if unfair dismissal laws are amended as the government intends. The estimate for the last two years is 50,000. Another leap of twisted logic parallel to easing the burden on small business by imposing a huge GST is that, to create jobs for small business, one must make it much easier to dismiss workers. The former Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business was a champion at making assertions as true fact. He went wild with condemnation when the parliament actually rejected this bill. In media release after media release and speech after speech he returned to this claim of 50,000 jobs being created if only this bill would be passed. The figure was simply plucked from the sky by the Council of Small Business Organisations of Australia. The former minister revealed the figure and where it came from in an answer to a question on notice on 10 February 1999. He said:

Here we have a bill shredding workers' rights based on the conservative views of the Council of Small Business Organisations. That is the very same group who convinced small business that the GST and their becoming tax office branches was worthy of its support.

Small business will not and does not make employment decisions on the basis of unfair dismissal laws. It makes such decisions on a variety of factors, as my discussions with a small business man in Wollongong illustrates. Other factors include whether the firm actually needs more employees, whether there is a suitable demand for product and the firm's own ability to fund such employment. Such views are outlined in much further detail in the Senate report that inquired into this bill on 31 August 2000.

This bill breaches Australia's international convention obligations. Australia ratified ILO Convention on the Termination of Employment 1982, Convention No. 158, on 26 February 1993. In ratifying the convention, Australia undertook to ensure domestic laws and practices conform with international convention. Australia is only one of a handful of countries that seeks to limit unfair dismissal law access to companies with few employees. Australia signed and ratified this convention. We should fulfil our obligation in spirit and letter. This bill does not.

The bill is unfair, it is unnecessary, it is a shallow election device, but it carries a serious message and confirms the perception in the electorate that, despite the government's desire to look as if it were listening and consulting, it is not and is determined to whack workers by taking away fundamental rights. The bill is directed at seeking to make amends with small business for imposing the GST on it and burdening the sector with tax collection duty. Indeed, it is a mean-spirited bill. Workers have a right to apply under the law to have decisions dismissing them from employment by an employer assessed through a fair and an independent process. This bill's provisions, unchanged as they are for the last two years, take that right away and fundamentally attack it. This bill is flawed and should be withdrawn. If not, every member of this parliament should, without hesitation, oppose its passage.