Senator JACINTA COLLINS (4:17 PM) —At the request of Senator Faulkner, I move:

That the Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations (Nos 2 and 3), as contained in Statutory Rules 1998 Nos 338 and 353 and made under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 , be disallowed.

I must admit when I first addressed this matter it seemed somewhat like Groundhog Day . This is, on my counting, the fifth time the Senate has been called upon to look at what could be regarded as a new instrument. In seeking to characterise what we were looking at yet again, my attention was drawn to an article by Glen Milne in yesterday's Australian , where he described the minister's behaviour on another matter—namely, that of his position on the republic—as reported by Liberal MPs as popularist and unprincipled. I call upon this depiction in relation to these regulations. I will go on further to explain why the Senate should disallow them.

Mr Reith is perhaps still carrying the baton in his knapsack of leadership, although, as Mr Milne pointed out, his position on the republic is suffering and there is no doubt with this measure that his finger is still on the double dissolution trigger. To the description of popularist and unprincipled given by his own colleagues, I would add the description of baseless and misleading in relation to these measures. Before I go on to the detail and the history of these regulations, I would like to bring to the Senate's attention the most recent example of this. On AAP last night, the minister was quoted as saying in relation to unfair dismissal laws:

We will not back down on this. It is a sensible measure. It is consistent with the International Labour Organisation convention. It is consistent with what other countries do overseas.

These are the baseless lies that the minister continues with in relation to these regulations.

Senator O'Chee —Mr Acting Deputy President, I raise a point of order. The honourable senator knows that it is quite inappropriate to suggest that the minister has lied or that he has persisted in lies or any such phrase like that. I ask that it be withdrawn.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Mr Acting Deputy President, I am happy to withdraw that reference, although as I continue to explain this matter I will add an explanation of why we go to such extents. We have continually brought the minister to bear on misleading remarks he has made in this debate, and I will do so once again. I will leave it up to public to draw the conclusion of whether they are lies or not, but I think the record should be pretty clear.

When the department and the minister have presented the arguments in this matter, the only time they referred to the ILO was in relation to the exclusion with respect to the qualifying period, not with respect to the small business exemption. Senator Tierney will recall that in the evidence before us from the Justice Research Centre—and I will refer directly to page 2 of that—they canvassed the position in relation to ILO convention 158. A clear reference here is that the convention does not allow a government to subsequently introduce new exceptions that were not in force at the time of the first report. They go on to explain:

In addition to affording appropriate flexibility, the purpose of exception clauses in ILO conventions is for member states to endeavour to gradually achieve broader application . . .

Not to introduce narrower application. The other comment that the minister made was that we were consistent with other countries. The Justice Research Centre helpfully reminded us of that point, although it has been canvassed in the past on this matter as well. In their submission to the inquiry on page 6 they stated:

In relation to the lack of justification for setting a threshold at 15 employees, the committee of experts of the ILO General Survey on Convention 158 lists only four countries which limit protection against unfair dismissal according to the size of the business concerned. Of these, the only country to have a threshold as high as 15 employees is Sri Lanka.

This is not a country with which Australia routinely compares itself in economic matters, although under the current government people might question that. They conclude their comments with the remark that the other countries noticed by the committee of experts—Germany, Austria and the Republic of Korea—have much lower thresholds of three to five employees. So I leave it to the public to determine the reliability of the minister's comments in these matters when he says that what we are proceeding with is consistent with the ILO and consistent with other countries. I have brought this matter forward before going into the detail and the history of these regulations because I think it reinforces the point that we need to apply a fairly strong element of caution to the minister's remarks in this matter.

Before referring to the history of these regulations, I should point out that a bill before the Senate at the moment that the minister circumvented with these regulations relates to two similar matters: firstly, to require a six-month qualifying period of employment before new employees other than apprentices and trainees can access an unfair dismissal remedy under the act; and to ex clude new employees of small businesses, other than apprentices and trainees, of 15 or fewer employees from an unfair dismissal remedy under the act but with the additional provision of increasing the filing fee from $50 to $100 to try to limit the number of claims. So these regulations are slightly broader than the provisions that were before the Senate in relation to the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 but, on the whole, we are canvassing pretty much the same issues.

The history of these regulations is as I have summarised. This is the fifth time these matters have been before us. The story started in 1996 when the government introduced the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Bill, which amended the previous Labor government's unfair dismissal laws. These were fairly significant changes, and the government has been known to claim that these significant changes have had a huge impact, and Mr Howard has claimed a huge amount of success with respect to the changes that occurred under this act. But, despite this and despite the fact that the Prime Minister also gave several assurances over time—as, in fact, did the minister—that everybody would have access to appeal on issues related to things such as dismissal, the minister went on with this.

I encourage senators to refer to the report of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 inquiry by the Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee—not only to the government members' report but also to that by the Democrats and by Labor members. That report also canvasses the history of this at some length and it deals in a fair amount of detail with an assessment of the evidence.

But if we go back to the history, apart from the significant changes that were made under this government, regulations to exclude access to unfair dismissal laws by employees with less than 12 months continuous employment and by those who work for a business of 15 or fewer employees were introduced by the government in July 1997. The Senate disallowed these regulations. The Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1997, proposing a permanent exemption for small businesses of 15 or fewer employees from the unfair dismissal laws, was introduced into the Senate in September 1997 and referred to the Senate Economics Legislation Committee for inquiry and report. Like this time, minority Labor and Democrat committee members passed dissenting reports recommending that the bill not be passed, and the bill was defeated in October 1997.

A further bill, with identical provisions, was introduced into parliament in November of that year and defeated in the Senate in March 1998. On 12 November 1998 the government introduced the Workplace Relations Amendment (Unfair Dismissals) Bill 1998 into the House of Representatives and this bill was referred to the Senate Employment, Workplace Relations, Small Business and Education Legislation Committee for examination. Whilst this examination was scheduled to occur, the measures proposed in the bill were contained in the Workplace Relations Amendment Regulations 1998 (Nos 2 and 3), the subject of this disallowance motion.

Labor senators joined the Democrats, the Greens, Senator Harradine and Senator Colston in expressing their anger about this matter. This matter was before the Senate for investigation and inquiry when the minister chose to go down the path of regulation—regulations which the minister was aware had already been disallowed by the Senate. I would claim that the minister is not only demonstrating his contempt for the process of parliament but is also demonstrating his contempt for small business because he knew full well that this matter would come before us now and he knew full well what the outcome of that would be.

Let me refer to the investigation that the Senate was in the process of conducting. I would like to go back to Mr Reith's second reading speech, which was essentially the genesis of the inquiry that the Senate determined to undertake. In his second reading speech the minister said:

Senators who spoke against the previous bill to introduce the small business exclusion said there was insufficient evidence of the need for the bill, and its benefits. There was plenty of evidence, but they would not allow themselves to be convinced.

He cited several examples of the evidence and then he went on to say:

Then there was the Yellow Pages Small Business Index Survey conducted in October and November 1997, and further surveys conducted in March 1998 and July 1998 by the New South Wales, South Australian and Queensland chambers. These surveys, and others like them, make completely plain the importance which business attaches to this issue.

Senator Tierney —It all points to the same conclusion.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Senator Tierney, I am actually quoting your minister. I do not think you need to interject at this stage. I do not think he needs your reinforcement. The Senate decided that, once again, given the minister's encouragement, we would investigate those surveys, and unfortunately we pretty much came to the same conclusion. That is the subject of the Labor members' report and it is also the subject of Senator Murray's report.

Senator Tierney —Tell us about the ACCI one.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —I do not have the time at this stage to go through the detail, but I would encourage all senators and the public to refer to those reports because, as Senator Tierney claims yet again, you should look at the most recent survey by employers who have push polled this issue yet again. But the difficulty for Mr Reith is that his claims do not stand up to close analysis. An examination of the evidence he cites indicates that he has selectively chosen statistics which buttress his case, he has relied on surveys with dubious methodology, he has relied on guesses or simply ignored data—

Senator Tierney —Tell us about the ACCI one. Tell me what is wrong with it.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —which are not helpful to his views in this case. Senator Tierney continually refers to the ACCI survey—time and time again. I will get to that matter, Senator Tierney, but before I do, I think we will deal with some of the other material that was before us.

Mr Reith then directed his own department to follow his example. This has placed the department in the invidious situation of having to ignore definitive, unbiased surveys, such as its own Australian workplace industrial relations survey, which contradict the minister's rhetoric. Despite the fact that the department quite loyally has tried to put forth material to further reinforce the minister's case, it has continued to ignore material such as that which came to us via ACIRRT, which points out that unpublished material by the Australian workplace industrial relations survey states quite clearly, before the minister's push polling on this matter—

Senator Tierney interjecting—

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —that only 0.9 per cent of respondents nominated that they had not recruited employees because of unfair dismissal legislation.

Senator Tierney —How do you line that up with the ACCI?

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —That is the sort of result you get when you do not push poll a question. Senator Tierney had, in the course of the evidence before us—

Senator Tierney interjecting—

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —a lesson in what is a leading question. I would encourage Senator Tierney—

Senator Tierney interjecting—

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —to go back to his lesson about what is a leading question.

Senator Tierney —State the facts!

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT (Senator Watson) —Order! Please address your remarks through the chair rather than through Senator Tierney.

Senator Margetts —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President: if you are going to take a point of order on the speaker, I wonder if you could take a point of order on the interjections, please.

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Senator Tierney is obviously very excited. I have already encouraged him to refer to the lesson he had on basic—

Senator Murray —On a point of order, Mr Acting Deputy President, I refer to undue interference from the other side. As you would know, I very seldom get angry in this place, and I have to attend many debates. Senator Tierney is acting in a manner which does not befit a senator and is not allowing the other senator to put her point of view. He has 20 minutes in which to put his case. I would appreciate it if you would discipline him accordingly.

The ACTING DEPUTY PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Tierney has been interjecting but, on the other hand, I think Senator Collins has been baiting the senator somewhat.

Opposition senators interjecting—

Senator JACINTA COLLINS —Mr Acting Deputy President, in response to that—as part of my contribution—perhaps I will point out that this is a debate on an issue, and if senators feel sensitive about the facts there is not really much I can do about that. It is, perhaps, incumbent upon you to control the chamber rather than to suggest that I not bait other senators with what are facts.

Senator Tierney obviously does not want me to refer to the fact that Mr Reith's own department was forced into the position where, in its response to senators and to this inquiry, it had to produce a rider to the material presented to the Senate. It is also in our report but I will quote it:

The department neither sought nor claimed to provide a comprehensive discussion or analysis of all of the survey material, research findings and points of view relevant to the subject matter of the bill. The references to surveys and related material included in the submission were included for the purpose of explaining the government's policy position.

So the only research, the only data, the only material we got was that which was consistent with the minister's position. That is the point—that the department was forced to put a rider into its own material to us about it.

The minister also further compromised officers of his own department by directing that they present his selected witnesses from small business to appear at a hearing by the committee on this bill, as part of their own submission to the committee. This is unprece dented behaviour. The inappropriateness of this directive was demonstrated when one of the witnesses testified about a case that is currently before the Industrial Relations Commission.

This is despite the fact that the secretary to the department was aware—he has since informed us—of the fact that the president and the commission themselves keep this information secret. But the secretary, at the direction of the minister, prodded up these small business employers whom we did not take the time to analyse because we wanted to question the department on its submission, and paid their airfare inappropriately. This matter is now referred to the Procedure Committee of the Senate to further investigate. Again, this is an example of the lengths that the minister is prepared to go to in this matter.

I have already indicated that I am not going to go into the detail of the several surveys that are contrary in their indication to what the department has presented. That is in our report and it is also in Senator Murray's report. The claims about inconsistent positions by the government we have been through time and time again. But then, we are starting to get used to that issue from the Prime Minister.

There is perhaps one issue that I would like to highlight; in this whole debate, I query this situation time and time again. I was taught in my early secondary school days a pretty basic lesson on the analysis of social research data. When you are confronted with a survey, you never take it on face value. And yet, that is what the department has done. That is the presentation of the material we have received. That is what the minister has done.

When we attempt, as Senator Murray and I have done on several occasions, to further investigate the research, we confront problems such as the department never even having sighted it. I will give you one quick example. The New South Wales chamber was referred to by the minister. I contacted the chamber, eventually, when I could not get the material from the department. On my second go, the chamber finally sent me the material which explained a press release that had been re ferred to by the minister. What the material actually said was very interesting.

The material said that half of those employers who had responded to the questions and had indicated that they had been subject to an unfair dismissal claim did not think it affected their hiring intentions. So if you cannot even convince the businesses that have been subject to a claim of this matter, why on earth should we be convinced? If half the respondents to a New South Wales chamber survey, apart from being employers being questioned on this matter—and probably quite desirous of reducing the restrictions placed upon them by legislation—who have indicated that they have been subject to a claim do not think it affects their hiring intentions, why on earth should we be convinced?

Just before I conclude on this matter I want to deal with one aspect of the evidence that was before us because I think it provides some balance to the minister's claims in this matter—that is, evidence included in the submission from the Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association, of which I was an employee, quite proudly, for about 15 years. I cite my interest after Minister Alston's comments at question time. I want to refer all senators to that submission and the several cases they give as a sample of employees who would not have access to remedy if this exemption went forward.

In conclusion, the one point I want to go back to is the populist issue. The minister's own colleagues regard him as a populist and that is what he is being in this matter. Even COSBOA, represented by Mr Bastian, is calling on him to redefine this debate because the minister is now costing jobs. He is feeding the perceptions which are now costing jobs in small business. He is probably costing the 50,000 jobs he is claiming these regulations would generate through developing the perception that there is a problem with these laws when he cannot demonstrate the fact.