Senator O'BRIEN (5:54 PM) —I will be brief in supporting the motion to disallow these regulations. I am sure it will be suggested by those opposite that somehow our opposition to this legislation has to do with an interest because we are—or, in some cases, have been—members of trade unions and have held positions in trade unions. What I want to remind those opposite is this: these regulations seek to, in effect, take away rights that exist under the legislation of this government for employees, whether members or not of trade unions. I want them to reflect that, in fact, they are taking rights away not from a class of people who are union members but from a class of people who are employees who happen to be employed in small businesses, and all of the material that has been placed before us indicates that there are a great many people employed in small business.

If we are to believe what is said, and small business is the generator of new jobs, then there will be thousands and thousands and thousands of employees, present and to come, whose rights are curtailed by the regulations, which were so sneakily put forward, promulgated, by the minister before Christmas. This, of course, is the minister who was quite prepared to be involved in discussions which I think would lead to the view that there was knowledge about the sacking of thousands of waterfront workers because that was a means that suited the end of this minister. In this case, the minister is seeking to achieve an end he cannot achieve legislatively, even tempo rarily, by promulgating a regulation after the parliament rose last year and seeking by means that are unclear to me to somehow get these regulations up.

Senator Hogg —A coward's act.

Senator O'BRIEN —I am not really sure that this can be seen as anything other than a deliberate, calculated and even cowardly act by the minister in relation to these regulations. I reject the suggestion that perhaps because I am a member of a trade union somehow I have a special interest in this. We all have a special interest in this legislation because we all represent, or at least purport to represent, those people who voted for us, and there are people who voted for all parties here who would fall within the class of employees who will be disenfranchised, in effect, or who would lose their rights to seek some redress for an unfair act by their employer.

All of the argument that the government has put up in this case has been designed to beat up the fears of employers. They are saying, `You really have something to fear from this legislation.' We really have not heard a statistical analysis of the number of employees who were engaged by small business, the number of employees who were dismissed by small business and the number amongst them who actually do pursue their rights. But, if you look at it, the number who actually are dismissed and pursue their rights must be absolutely minimal. Senator Murray laid out some figures for us today in the chamber which indicate that an extremely small percentage of employees who are actually dismissed by small business pursue their right to a remedy.

I am not saying that they are the only people who might have rights to pursue. There would be a great many people who would make the decision, `I do not want to go through the process. I know it is difficult for me.' It may be difficult for the employers, but it is not easy for employees either. It takes a very strong-willed person to pursue their rights in these sorts of proceedings. I have been involved in proceedings, representing employees, and I know how stressful it can be for them because essentially they have to put their credibility on the line, justify their position and have the allegations which are made against them laid out in a public hearing.

So the people who pursue their rights must be fairly strong-minded people to do that, I would suggest, and to succeed they would need a very good case. It is not really as simple as coming up with some anecdotal evidence about someone who allegedly had their hand in the till and got off. I think Senator Boswell attempted to suggest this, to justify this extremely pernicious piece of legislation by regulation.

If this regulation were to stand, what would its effect be on the employment of a number of people in small businesses? Wouldn't it be equally arguable that a number of employers would say, `If I do not dismiss this person by this date then I will become liable to the provisions of the act in relation to unfair dismissal'? So if the government's argument is correct and employers are not engaging staff because they fear they might fall foul of the legislation as it stands or if, at a point in time, a small business employing fewer than 15 people were to become liable to the provisions of this regulation, then the employer might have a vested interest in terminating before that date occurred. That could well be an issue in which the government is actually further encouraging the employers to curtail employment of employees before that occurred.

It really is a case, as Senator Murray so eloquently put it, of the removal of the rights of a class of employees because they happen to be employed in small businesses—without the justification which I think ought to be put forward. For example, why should employees in my state employed under this legislation lose those rights when employees employed under the state legislation working in a business next door maintain those rights? This government may well say that the Tasmanian employees under the state act should lose their rights. But I can tell you that that is not likely to happen in the immediate future. So you create a class of employees who are second-class citizens in terms of their rights.

Bear in mind that the legislation which is, in effect, being altered by this regulation contemplated the rights that exist now. And that is the legislation of this government. So all that the government and this minister are doing is either telling us that they were never serious when they came up with an agreement with the Democrats for provisions in relation to unfair dismissal or that, somehow, there has been some substantial change in circumstances since they came up with the agreement—which was so trumpeted—with the Democrats for the implementation of the provisions of the bill as they now stand. I am not surprised that the Democrats are so incensed at the actions of this government, because I think they believed that they had a deal and that, in effect, this minister is ratting on a deal that he made. He has put forward no justification for doing so. The Democrats, understandably, are furious that the minister is trying to cut the ground from under them when the Democrats said that they had a reasonable deal on unfair dismissal provisions.

I will close on this point: if a minister seeks to have a relationship with parties in this House in respect of negotiations, then he had better come to those negotiations with clean hands. The actions of this minister in relation to these regulations clearly indicate for all to see that the minister is not bound by agreements that he reaches, and that he seeks to undermine part of that agreement he reached with the Democrats by promulgating this regulation. It seems to me that this regulation will fail, that it will be defeated, and I look forward to the vote this evening.