Andrew Murray (WA, Australian Democrats) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move Democrat amendments (1) and (2) on sheet 5443:

(1)    Schedule 1, page 68 (after line 1), after item 132, insert:

132A  Subsection 643(10)

Repeal the subsection.

(2)    Schedule 1, page 68 (after line 1), after item 132, insert:

132B  Paragraph 645(5)(c)

Repeal the paragraph.

I draw the attention of the participants to sheet 5443. I intend to make my remarks to all three sets of amendments that you see on that sheet in one go. I do not intend to speak at length; I think participants in the debate know what this is about so I will deal with it on that basis. When I am discussing the unfair dismissals issue with people who are not members of parliament, they are always quite astonished when I say, ‘Actually, all parties are in furious agreement on unfair dismissals.’ Every political party does actually support unfair dismissal provisions; the quarrels have been about the threshold at which they apply and the extent to which they apply. The coalition, for instance—taking them as a starting point—began their life in government in 1996 supporting unfair dismissal provisions for all employees but agreed with the Democrats, in our agreement on the 1996 bill, that there would be restrictions placed on probationary, casual and specified-term contract employees applying for unfair dismissal relief. The result of that agreement was that federal unfair dismissal applications fell by 50 per cent. Subsequently, in 1997, the coalition began to ratchet it back, and in the Workplace Relations Amendment Bill 1997 the coalition proposed a permanent exclusion for new employees in businesses of 15 employees or fewer from making an unfair dismissal application. That bill eventually ended up as a double dissolution trigger. The point is that having provisions for unfair dismissals was still a policy for the coalition for businesses with above 15 employees at that time. Fifteen was chosen because it was the number used in industrial instruments. Subsequently, the policy of the coalition was to set it at what was known as the small business level, which was the Australian Bureau of Statistics level of 20 employees or more, and then they raised it even higher with Work Choices to 100 employees or more.

The Greens have always held to the view that unfair dismissal provisions should apply to all employees. Labor did hold that view but have now moved to the view of the coalition in 1997, which is that it should apply to organisations with 15 or more employees. The Democrats continue to believe that all employees should have access—provided, of course, that the surrounding environment discourages vexatious claims and that restrictions are placed on probationary, casual and specified-term contract employees.

Knowing that the coalition are still attached to the view that unfair dismissal provisions should not apply to small business, and knowing that the Labor policy is for unfair dismissal provisions to apply to organisations with 15 employees or more, I thought I would bring the issue on—just to be helpful. I have proposed what I would describe broadly as Green and Democrats policy: that unfair dismissal provisions under the Workplace Relations Act apply to all employees—items (1) and (2) on sheet 5443. Then, if that goes down—which, I must say, in my pessimistic way I have anticipated it will—I offer up Labor policy; and, if that goes down, I then offer up what was the previous coalition policy, which is for it to apply to organisations with 20 or more employees.

What I expect is that, when the substantive bill that Labor talked about is introduced later this year, they will bring forward their policy of unfair dismissal provisions applying to organisations with 15 or more employees, and they will have to get the numbers from the Greens senators and the votes of Senators Fielding and Xenophon to agree with that. I suspect they will get that approval and so it will become law. What I would like is for it to become law now. I do not raise this to be mildly provocative but because the issue of unfair dismissal provisions and it being of assistance in fairness matters was raised by a number of witnesses in the Senate inquiry, independently of my questioning or anybody else’s questioning. I do not propose to say much more unless I am obliged to.