Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is again to the Prime Minister and it follows on from his previous answer. Isn’t it the case that, as a result of the government’s industrial relations legislation, Emily Connor, who is in the gallery here today, has lost her right to an unfair dismissal hearing through the independent umpire? Isn’t it also the case that, because no reasons were given for her dismissal, she has no grounds—

Mrs Bronwyn Bishop (Mackellar, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The opposition are in breach of standing order 98. They are continuing in this line of questioning to ask for an opinion and, indeed, something verging on a legal opinion. This is the second question in this line of questioning and she is totally out of order.

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

I am listening carefully to the member for Canberra. She has not completed her question. I call the member for Canberra.

Annette Ellis (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Isn’t it also the case that, because no reasons were given for her dismissal, she has no grounds for an unlawful dismissal application? Isn’t it also the case that, even if Emily could bring an unlawful dismissal claim against her employer, it would cost her on average anywhere up to $30,000 in legal fees and expenses before the court? Will the Prime Minister look Emily in the eye and tell her how getting the sack unfairly, for no reason and with no remedy is fair?

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

Order! In calling the Prime Minister, I would say that the last part of the question was really outside the standing orders.

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

I am not aware of the individual circumstances of this case—nor, of course, can I be expected to be aware—but I have never disguised the fact that one of the changes we made was to remove the unfair dismissal laws in relation to companies employing fewer than 100 people. We make no apology for having done that.

Wayne Swan (Lilley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did disguise it!

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

Order! The member for Lilley is warned!

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

We make no apology for having done that because we believe, as indeed many people around the country have believed for a long time, that the old unfair dismissal laws, introduced by the Labor Party under a secret deal with the ACTU during the 1993 election campaign, have in fact destroyed jobs. What you must do in relation to something such as this is assess the overall impact on the total workforce, and there is no doubt at all that there will be employment gains, especially in small business, as a result of the changes that have been made.

Kim Wilkie (Swan, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr Wilkie interjecting

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

Order! The member for Swan is warned!

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

Every country that maintains the rigid, regulated IR system that Labor is now unequivocally committed to has higher levels of unemployment than do the countries that embrace the sort of policy that we believe in. It is no secret that Australia, Great Britain, the United States and New Zealand, with less regulated labour markets, have lower levels of unemployment than countries such as Germany, France and other nations of Europe.

If you want to reregulate the Australian labour market, go ahead and do so, and realise that as a result you will drive tens of thousands of extra Australians onto the dole queues. I remind those opposite who fulminate with moral outrage that in the early 1990s you had all the regulation in the world, yet you drove a million Australians onto the dole queues, you saw their living standards drag and you saw their aspirations belted to smithereens by the economic downturn that your industrial relations policy did nothing to stop. We have changed these laws because we believe—and we have sound evidence to support it through the experience of other countries—that a freer labour market and greater flexibility in relation to hiring and so forth of people will result in higher levels of employment. That is the evidence and that is the reason why we have taken our decision.