Mrs HULL (12:13 PM) —I rise to speak on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Fair Dismissal) Bill 2002 and again to put forth my views in respect of either unfair dismissals or fair dismissals— whichever way we look at it. When we considered the previous unfair dismissals bill, I spoke on this problem, and in doing so I recorded that in 1999 a majority report of a Senate committee recommended that the bill be passed without amendment. But despite that, Labor and the Democrats still claim that there is no evidence linking the impact of unfair dismissal laws and the hiring intentions of small business employers. I still consider that there is the perception out in the small business world that unfair dismissals greatly impact on small business. We all know that perception is reality, particularly in this political world.

This bill does not propose to allow small business to discriminate against people, and it does not allow small business to sack people illegally—for example, due to age, religion or sexual preference. This bill would exempt small business from unfair dismissal laws—not from unlawful dismissal laws. It applies to workers of the future—not existing workers.

As a small businessperson, I am the first person to recognise that there are more issues confronting small business than just unfair dismissal laws. The ACCI survey indicates that for small business—those businesses with 20 employees or less—the No. 1 issue was business taxes and government charges. The member for Hunter raised these issues this morning in his address. Other issues were insufficient demand, wage costs, non-wage labour costs and current levels of debt. I admit there are enormous problems confronting small businesspeople. There are things that we are trying to do to address those areas. In answer to the member for Hunter's queries on what the government is doing about these issues, there are areas in which the government needs to work. However, haven't small businesses got enough to deal with without this unfair legislation? They have got enough to worry about with business taxes and government charges, insufficient demand, wage costs, non-wage labour costs and current levels of debt. They should not have to worry about these unfair dismissal laws, whether or not they are successful in their small business and are looking to reduce their own work hours and put somebody on or, if their business drops off, they need to lay staff off in order to salvage their business.

An article in the Financial Review of Thursday, 14 February 2002—Valentine's Day; no love from the Labor Party for small business though, unfortunately—states:

If I were a small business subject to a survey from the ACTU asking me whether or not unfair dismissal was a problem in my business, I would immediately say, `Not for me. No, no problems. In my business unfair dismissal doesn't even enter my thoughts,' because I would not want to create a problem. Saying `yes' would be just creating a problem, so I am not surprised that that survey did not pick up that there were great problems associated with unfair dismissal laws in small business.

I can categorically state right here and now that, every time I go to the counter at my electorate office or pick up the phone and it is a small businessperson, it is usually about unfair dismissal and their concerns and woes in relation to it. Yesterday I had leave from the House to go home and attend a very dear friend's funeral. I rushed into my electorate office to pick up some material and there was a person standing at the counter who demanded to see me. I rushed to the counter, indicating that I was in a great hurry, but he was in such a disturbed and distressed condition because of his experience with unfair dismissal that I stayed there with him. It was an appalling situation that he found himself in and he was unable to retrieve his business because of the way in which he had been treated by an employee.

That is not to say that every employee is going to look at doing the wrong thing by their employer but, at the same time, every employer is not about doing the wrong thing by their employee. It cuts both ways. We have this old saying: `Who's looking after the children?' I ask, `Who's looking after the employer?' That is why I speak on this bill on behalf of those people in the small business sector who are working day and night, are average, everyday John Citizens who are trying to do the right thing within their business, trying to maintain business standards and principles and trying to absorb a whole host of issues associated with getting people through their doors and offering a service.

As I mentioned in this House before, the customer is expecting more and more from the small business operator every single day. The small business operator opens his or her door and is now subject to unrealistic expectations from the consumer. In doing so, they have got enough to deal with without having some unscrupulous employee who would take time out to ensure that they make as much trouble as they can, if they believe they have not been dealt with appropriately. This is about perception: what one believes is the right way in which one should be dealt with by an employer. Sometimes we do have employees with unreal expectations of an employer. The attitude is: `I am earning your money, I am making you this money, so I am entitled to have something back for it.' Yes, they are, because that is why you have wage arbitration and enterprise and workplace agreements. But when it becomes unrealistic, when people are assuming that the employer has no rights—and all we ever see from that side of the House—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Order!

Mrs HULL —I am really quite used to the member for Chisholm's interjections, because we have had exchanges across the chamber on this bill before. The employer has absolutely no rights in the face of the opposition and the minor parties in the Senate not coming on board to assist us in removing some of these problems.

I believe that there is a genuine interest in trying to resolve this issue in the Senate by some on the opposition side simply because they recognise how hard it is out there. They recognise that there are many good people out there and, as the member for Hunter said in the last parliament, most employers do exactly the right thing by their employees. Most of them have a great working relationship with their employees. However, at times, employers face the position where they are unable to get across their message as to how their business is being impacted upon. Some employees do act unscrupulously towards employers. Why do employers not have rights? Because the Labor Party refuses them rights because they will not pass this bill in the Senate. I call on the Labor Party to move forward in the Senate, take small business forward and recognise—as this government has recognised—that there are more issues surrounding small business than unfair dismissal, but it is an issue that needs to be resolved. It is an issue which cannot be discussed openly and publicly because it appears that it has some sort of stigma attached to it. Employers cannot discuss it openly because of the attitude of the Labor Party. I call on you to pass this bill through the Senate.