Eric Abetz (Tasmania, Liberal Party, Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) Share this | Hansard source

by leave—I move opposition amendments (2) to (5) on sheet 5739 revised:

(2)    Clause 23, page 41 (line 31), omit “15 employees”, substitute “25 employees”.

(3)   Clause 23, page 42 (line 5), at the end of subclause (2), add:

   ; and (c)    the number is to be calculated in terms of full-time equivalent positions, not as an individual head count of employees; and

             (d)    the regulations must prescribe a method for the calculation of full-time equivalent positions for the purposes of this section.

(4)   Clause 121, page 122 (line 5), omit “Section”, substitute “(1)  Section”.

(5)   Clause 121, page 122 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add:

        (2)    Subsection 23(1) has effect in relation to this section as if it were modified by omitting “25 employees” and substituting “15 employees”.

        (3)    Subsection 23(2) has effect in relation to this section as if it were modified by omitting paragraphs (c) and (d).

We are now coming to that part of the debate as to what is the appropriate size of a small business. I know that my colleague Senator Boyce wants to make a contribution and will be indicating to the Senate some excellent research she has done on what others consider to be the appropriate number in relation to a small business. We as an opposition say that the number should be 25. We note that Senators Fielding and Xenophon are of the view that it ought be 20 and the government is at this stage, I think along with the Greens, saying that it ought be 15.

Is there any magic around any particular figure? No, there is not. The question really is, from our point of view: what is the figure that is most conducive to seeing employment growth in the small-business sector? We have been concerned to ensure that some of the obstacles that have been in the way of small business employing people be removed. Whilst I will not traverse that which has now been rejected and thrown out, one of the motivations in the past for the threshold of 100 by the then government was that it would see a huge growth in employment. I still remember when the change was made, when unemployment was where it is today, that we said we dared to hope to have unemployment with a figure of four in front of it. When we left office we had failed: the unemployment level did not have a four in front of it. In fact, it had a three in front of it: 3.9 per cent. It was beyond that which we had dared to dream about—and, of course, each part percentage point that unemployment came down meant thousands more of our fellow Australians had gainful employment.

When you talk to small business, there is no doubt about the unfair dismissal laws as they were coupled with the prospect of go-away money. I think Mr Beazley and Mr Rudd even admitted, during the election campaign and in the lead-up to it, that go-away money was a problem. A small business would be told, ‘Unless you pay us $2,000 or $3,000 we will be requiring you to front up, with a union representing us’—as a result, no legal fees—but the small business, of course, would have to engage a lawyer. I remember circumstances such as this, even when a small business won, when as a lawyer I had to say to people, ‘We can win this case, but you’ll have to pay me possibly $5,000 to $10,000, so a commercial decision is to offer them three or four and do a deed of release’—and each time it worked a treat. It was unfair and unreasonable, and within the small business community it led to people saying, ‘We will not employ people.’

Can I say that, even with the figure of 15, and how the government is now approaching it, we have seen a seismic shift in the thinking of the Labor Party in relation to unfair dismissal laws and the regime—and we in the coalition welcome that. We say the seismic change to 15 is not quite far enough, but we do accept the verdict of the Australian people that they viewed the figure of 100 as excessive. I know Senator Boyce will give us some interesting information about what others think the appropriate threshold is. I recall previously in this debate reminding people that the ILO, the International Labour Organisation, considers a small business to be one that employs 50 people or less. So the coalition going for a threshold of 25 is very, very modest and moderate in comparison to that which the International Labor Organisation itself recognises. But we do accept the verdict of the Australian people. While the figure of 100 had, I believe, a great impact and was very beneficial in providing employment opportunities, a lot of people said it came at a cost that was unacceptable to the Australian people in relation to uncertainty. We accept that. That is why we think in the wash-up a figure of 25 is reasonable.

To conclude on this: undoubtedly the government will say to us that they have a mandate. They went to the election in relation to Forward with Fairness which mentioned the number 15. I say to the government: I think they would have had us snookered if they had come into this place with legislation that only replicated Forward with Fairness. But of course they have not. Labor made very strong promises in relation to the right of entry, when Ms Gillard was even willing to do something with her mother—I am not quite sure what it was, but she was willing to offer her mother if she were to break this solemn promise to the Australian people in relation to right of entry. We now know in the legislation before us that she has in fact broken that promise, albeit the latest amendments are getting back towards that promise.

Unfortunately, the government can now no longer claim that it has a mandate, because if it were to assert the mandate argument it would have to present legislation which was identical to Forward with Fairness—and I think all of us around this chamber know that that is not the case. Therefore, I think they have disallowed themselves from using the mandate argument. But, as I say, they may well have been able to snooker us on that if their legislation had only been Forward with Fairness. What they have done is said, ‘We do have to adjust it a bit here and there to accommodate certain other considerations.’ We say, ‘Well, if you are going to engage in that game, it is open to everybody to engage in that game; we therefore suggest the figure of 25.’