Mr HUNT (4:17 PM) —I rise to speak on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Choice in Award Coverage) Bill 2002 in two contexts. Firstly, I have received a letter from the proprietor of Amazing Things, a tourism venture—a small business—on Phillip Island. The proprietor was concerned that, through no choice of his own, his business, which he had established, which he had invested in and which he had risked his family's livelihood on, was being moved from state award coverage to federal award coverage. He believes the impact is likely to be twofold: firstly, there will be a great deal of damage not only to the productivity of the business but also to its viability; and secondly, as a consequence of that, there will be a great deal of damage to the very livelihoods of the employees whom those who purport to act on their behalf are seeking to protect. So both the employer and employees of a small business which has struggled and created itself from nothing, and which has survived on the basis of hard work, are placed at risk by this process. The proprietor has had not an ounce of say. The creator, investor, employer and driver has had not an ounce of say in this.

The second context is the national one. I believe that, deep down, everybody in this House is concerned about jobs and employment. Despite all the games we play, I think that, deep down, everybody is concerned about that. But sometimes ideology will get in the way of creating jobs. It gets in the way of removing those impediments to giving folks a chance to get out and work and provide for their own future. We are seeing this national context on the day that unemployment has dropped to 5.6 per cent—the lowest unemployment rate since 1989. Significantly, that means there are jobs out there. The participation rate is not plummeting; we are seeing a stable if not growing participation trend. We are also seeing real jobs being created and these jobs actually have an impact on people's lives.

So today's debate is in the context of the real human impact of the change in awards, not just on a business but also on its employees and, at the national level, of the reduction in the number of jobless to 5.6 per cent. So there is an environment of low unemployment, low interest rates, real wage growth—which means more money in the hands of families—economic growth and low inflation, which protects the value of the money that is in the hands of families. When you put all those things together, why would the opposition be against something that is about protecting jobs and creating more jobs?

In the end, that is what this legislation is about. It is about three things. Firstly, it is about job creation, and that is twinned with the fact that this government is continuing to push for the creation of a new unfair dismissals regime. The reason for that is that small businesses—such as Amazing Things—do employ. They employ and employ and employ. There are 50,000 new jobs waiting to be snapped up if we were to progress the new unfair dismissals regime.

In that context, we see that this legislation is about jobs, it is about giving small business the chance to flourish and, above all else—to take on board the arguments of the member for Blaxland—it is about choice. It is about being able to work together in a stable and harmonious environment where there are no union members and being able to thrive and flourish as a business. It is about protecting a small business against an asymmetric relationship with a large, powerful union which has a great capacity to use the law in such a way that it will bludgeon small businesses. How do we know this? It is because each and every member on this side of the House has met with constituents and small business owners—whether it is in my area of Hastings or Rosebud, Cranbourne, Lang Lang, Kooweerup or Dromana—who are afraid to take on new employees. It is an extraordinary situation when small business owners are afraid to take on new employees. Against that background, this legislation essentially does three things: it addresses a necessity, it addresses a process and it lays down specific provisions.

What is the necessity? The necessity we have is that at present there is a problem called `roping in'. Federal awards apply only to those employers that are listed as respondents to an award. The intention of a roping-in claim is to extend the coverage of a federal award to employers that are not currently under that award. Roping-in claims are made by federal unions which serve a log of claims on employers and demand that employers provide certain conditions of employment to their employees. If the business does not agree to the demand in the log of claims then that is the threat and power which can be imposed over a three-, four- or five-employee business. The union then notifies the Australian Industrial Relations Commission of an industrial dispute under section 99 of the Workplace Relations Act. So a small business can suddenly face an experienced, powerful litigator. When the member for Blaxland talks about an asymmetric relationship, that is an asymmetric relationship. Small businesses—mums and dads and families who put together a family business—

Mr Baldwin —Putting their own money on the line.

Mr HUNT —who put their own money on the line, are suddenly faced with the threat of oblivion. What do they face? The Australian Industrial Relations Commission then makes a finding about whether there is an industrial dispute under section 101 of the Workplace Relations Act. If it finds that there is a dispute, it may extend an existing award to cover the business, and suddenly there is an entirely new regime. So you have not only the threat of litigation but also the threat, even more significantly, of an entire change in the relationship between employee and employer. Where there was a harmonious relationship, you can have a business drawn in against the will of all of those involved and roped into a situation where they are suddenly part of a national dispute. That is not good for the business, it is not good for employees and it is not good for the country.

I absolutely respect the notion of award systems and I absolutely respect the idea that people are entitled to band together, but in this case we are taking away from small business the capacity to have some influence over its own future. It is not a large-scale shop floor—we are talking about small businesses. So why then are the changes in the bill necessary? We see that the changes which were introduced in 1996 with the Workplace Relations Act significantly improve the workplace relations system. How do we know this? Because productivity has increased, days lost have decreased, real wage growth has increased and employment has increased—that is the definition of progress and change and improvement. Yet further reforms are necessary, and this legislation falls into that category.

What are the specific things that the bill will do? Firstly, the bill contains amendments that will enhance the ability of small businesses to resist attempts to rope them into federal awards, and that is an important thing. It allows them to have a margin of control over their own destiny. A dispute with an employer with fewer than 20 employees will only be taken to exist in a roping-in or log-of-claims process where the union demonstrates that it has a member employed by the employer. So there is still plenty of scope—make no mistake about it—but it is about protecting a business from being roped into a system in which neither the employees nor the employer have a part. The identity of the individual union member will still be kept confidential, so there is protection for the individual.

Where an alleged dispute is notified for any business on the ground that the employer has not agreed to the demands set out in the log of claims, the Industrial Relations Commission will be required not to make any finding of dispute unless it is satisfied of four things: firstly, that the log of claims, when it was served, was appropriately accompanied by a notice containing prescribed information—essentially that it was done in an appropriate process; secondly, that the dispute was not notified until after at least 28 days of service of the log—a procedural point; thirdly, that the party notifying of the alleged dispute had given the employer at least 28 days notice at the time; and, fourthly, that the log of claims did not include any demand requiring conduct or provision contrary to the freedom of association provisions. What are we talking about essentially here? We are talking about small businesses with fewer than 20 employees, where none of them are members of a union, being free of the fact that they could suddenly be drawn into a federal award. That is what it is about.

So when we hear from the member for Blaxland, whose Labor history I respect but whose views on this case I disagree with, that this is all about whether or not it is an asymmetric relationship, it is, but it is about protecting against an asymmetric relationship between a business run by a mother, a father, a family or two or three people—ordinary people from within each of our electorates—and simply protecting them from actions which are contrary to sound and sensible management practices. Anything else would be unfair or unreasonable.

In that context I return briefly to the overview. This bill comes against the fact that we see the lowest unemployment figure since 1989: 5.6 per cent today. That unemployment figure has been built on a number of things: it has been built on our increase in productivity; it has been built on the fact that we have been able to free up the industrial relations system to a certain measure; and it has been built on the fact that we have low interest rates, real wage growth, economic growth and low inflation. Against all of those conditions, this bill seeks to protect mother-and-father businesses so that they can continue to employ. In that context, I am delighted to commend this bill to the House.

Debate interrupted.