Anthony Byrne (Holt, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that on 28 March, a day after the government’s industrial relations legislation came into effect, eight experienced machine operators at Triangle Cables were sacked on the basis that their services were no longer required? Is the Prime Minister also aware that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in Melbourne recently ruled that as Triangle Cables had only 97 employees those employees were no longer entitled to unfair dismissal protection? Given that Triangle Cables is advertising for machine operators, doesn’t the Triangle Cable case show that Australian employees can be sacked for no reason and replaced?

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am not personally aware of the circumstances of that, but it is the case that the unfair dismissal laws have been changed and that they no longer apply to firms that employ fewer than 100 people. The government has not endeavoured at any time to disguise that fact. The view is taken by this government that, whilst laws relating to unlawful termination should be maintained—and I will come to that in a moment by way of supplementing, if I may, an earlier answer I gave in response to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition—it is in the interests of flexibility and greater employment in this country that the unfair dismissal laws should no longer apply to firms employing fewer than 100 people, and we have never made any secret of that fact. In fact, at the last election when we talked about unfair dismissal laws we did not put any statistical limit on the change we had in mind. But earlier in question time I was asked a question by the Leader of the Opposition. I think it was about a lady by the name of Karen Palmer, a machine operator at Greer Industries.

Julia Gillard (Lalor, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Health and Manager of Opposition Business in the House) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the Prime Minister intends to add to an answer, he has got a facility to do that at the end of question time.

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Manager of Opposition Business would be aware that the Prime Minister did say that he intended to add to an answer. As it is related, I believe, to the question, I call the Prime Minister. He is in order.

John Howard (Bennelong, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I was asked about Karen Palmer, a machine operator at Greer Industries. Since being asked that question I have been provided with some information about this, and I would like to share it with the House. Whilst I do not regard this to be an exhaustive statement of the facts, what I have been informed is this: the employee may have been dismissed in connection with her being temporarily absent from work due to illness or injury. If so, that could amount to an unlawful termination of employment, and the Workplace Relations Act makes it unlawful for an employer to dismiss an employee for one or more discriminatory reasons. One of the prohibited reasons for termination is temporary absence from work because of illness or injury. I understand that a union is pursuing a claim about unlawful termination of employment in this matter. If the employee makes a claim for unlawful termination, that person will be entitled to an order from the court unless the employer can prove—in other words, the onus is reversed—that the termination was for a reason that was not unlawful. The government put in place an unlawful termination scheme where people considering whether to proceed to a court can receive up to $4,000 worth of legal assistance on the merits of their claim.

The Office of Workplace Services have advised that they are currently examining the matter. It is interesting that, on the basis of this information, a claim for unlawful termination by a union is apparently either on foot or in contemplation. I do not recall, in the substance of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, any reference to unlawful termination. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition knew that and he did not want to disclose it to the House.

Honourable Members:

Honourable members interjecting—

David Hawker (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Members on my right are holding up their own colleague.