Mrs MOYLAN (10:19 PM) —It is a pleasure for me to rise to speak on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 [No. 2], although it is a great disappointment that it has been blocked on so many occasions by the Labor Party and by the Democrats. I say that because, when I came into this House in 1993, I came in on the platform of trying to look after small business in this country. The fact is that many of the million or so small enterprises in Australia today are family owned and family run. They are not businesses making huge profits. They are hardworking families who work long hours, and they have many burdens placed upon them.

I remember that, when I was made shadow minister for small business and had the opportunity to meet business people from all over Australia, one of the most memorable meetings I had was in the Newcastle markets. All the fruit and vegetable growers and the market people came to this meeting, and the minister for the then Labor government was there. We stood on the back of a truck in the Newcastle markets and debated this particular issue of unfair dismissal. It got national coverage in the media, as I recall, and it was really interesting because the then Labor Prime Minister came out the next day or a couple of days later and spoke out about the unfair dismissal laws and agreed that, if Labor got back into office, they would indeed have to do something about this.

When I was shadow minister and I travelled the country talking to businesses, it was the No. 1 issue for small businesses. There is no doubt that the way in which this unfair dismissal law worked was imposing a considerable burden on small businesses, and therefore it was a great disincentive for them to employ. We heard the member for Lowe talking about how ridiculous it was to say that employment could be created if this law were not in place. The point is that this law is an impediment to employment amongst our small businesses in Australia today.

Mr Fitzgibbon —But it's your law.

Mrs MOYLAN —We have tried many times to amend this unfair dismissal law.

Mr Fitzgibbon —You amended it in 1996.

Mrs MOYLAN —The member for Hunter is right. We did amend it, but we sought further amendments to that bill because of the difficulties it was causing small business. It has been blocked on every occasion by Labor who are anti-jobs and anti-small business. That is evident by the way they have blocked and prevented these amendments from going through.

The member for Lowe talked about it being rubbish that this was such a big issue in the community. I think a number of members have talked about this, but I would like to go through some of the groups that have spoken about the unfair dismissal laws and the difficulties that arise from them—it has a long history—and I am going to quote a few of them. The 1996 Morgan and Banks survey indicated that 16 per cent of businesses with fewer than 30 employees had been adversely affected in their hiring intentions by the previous federal unfair dismissal laws. The Recruitment Solutions survey released in April 1997 indicated that 32 per cent of businesses in metropolitan Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane had been the subject of some sort of unfair dismissal claim in the 12 months covered by that survey. In May 1997, there was a survey by the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce and the St George Bank where 56 per cent of businesses surveyed said that the prospect of unfair dismissal claims had discouraged them from recruiting additional staff. Trends in staff selection and recruitment, a report by the National Institute of Labour Studies in May 1997, commissioned by the then Department of Employment, Education, Training and Youth Affairs, found that unfair dismissal laws strongly influenced hiring decisions. Then there was the Yellow Pages Small Business Index survey conducted in October and November 1997 covering 1,200 randomly selected proprietors of small business. In this survey, 79 per cent of proprietors thought small businesses would be better off if they were exempted from unfair dismissal laws, 33 per cent of small businesses reported that they would have been more likely to recruit new employees if they had been exempted from unfair dismissal laws in 1996 and 1997 and 38 per cent of small businesses reported that they would be more likely to recruit new employees if they were exempted from the current unfair dismissal laws.

In March 1998, the New South Wales Chamber of Commerce revealed that 85 per cent of small businesses nominated unfair dismissals as a key issue for businesses with 15 or more employees. In July 1998, the South Australian Employers Chamber of Commerce and Industry revealed that 52 per cent of respondents who had been subject to unfair dismissal claims had not hired replacement employees and 77 per cent of respondents with fewer than 15 employees indicated that they would hire more employees if exempted from unfair dismissal legislation. In Queensland, the Chamber of Commerce and Industry pre federal election survey conducted in July 1998 said that unfair dismissal legislation was ranked as the third most important issue, only five points behind the top rating issue of taxation changes. The Australian Business Chamber also surveyed its members in July 1998 in preparation for an impending federal election. In its survey of unfair dismissals, it placed it fourth overall with a rating of 77—the top three issues all related to tax. Survey results were also aggregated according to the number of employees employed by each respondent. Employers with zero to 20 employees comprised 62 per cent of the respondents and they ranked unfair dismissal as their sixth most important issue. Unfair dismissals ranked very highly in all of these surveys, and these certainly cannot be so easily dismissed by the member for Lowe.

The member for Lowe started by talking about why we should maintain unfair dismissal laws to protect employees. I do not think any of us in this place think that it should be open slather, that employers should be able to be unfair and unlawful in the way they deal with their employees. There is a responsibility on both sides. During the worst of the debate on unfair dismissals, and in information coming back from small businesses, we find that very often, when they went to the tribunal to try to sort out the issues, the person being dismissed—making a claim for some tens of thousands of dollars in some cases from small family owned and operated businesses—did not bother to show up. I know that people travelled from the north-west of Western Australia—600 kilometres and so on—to the city to come before a tribunal to have their case heard only to be sent back home again because the person did not bother to show up. I know that when I was shadow minister there were in excess of 10,000 cases clogging the courts. Businesses, large and small, became very reluctant to put on additional labour. The Labor Party has constantly resisted what is blatantly obvious—that this is an impediment to employment, that it is costing small business and that it is costing, ultimately, employees. There is nothing to be gained by having people unemployed. It brings about social dislocation and economic disadvantage. So there is nothing to be gained for the people who would like to work, whose job opportunities are interfered with by laws that place an unrealistic and unwanted burden on small business.

I think it is important to note that the proposed amendments generally exempt small businesses with 15 or fewer employees from federal unfair dismissal laws and provide that only employees, other than apprentices and designated trainees, who have been continuously engaged by the same employer for at least six months may access federal unfair dismissal remedies.

Mr SPEAKER —I understand from a comment made by the Deputy Speaker as I came to the chair that the member for Pearce would like to seek leave to continue her remarks prior to the House adjourning. Am I correct?

Mrs MOYLAN —Yes, that is correct.

Mr SPEAKER —Leave is granted. The debate is adjourned and the member for Pearce will have an opportunity to continue her participation when the debate is resumed.