Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. I would like Senator Ludwig to explain to the Senate how the government’s workplace policy, and particularly the unfair dismissal rights it contains, balances rights in providing greater security for employees and flexibility for employers.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Pratt for her excellent question. What the Rudd government stands for are fairness and flexibility for Australian workers and employers, unlike those opposite. We are balancing the needs of employees, unions and employers to ensure that Australia is as competitive and prosperous as possible during these difficult economic times without compromising workplace rights. Work Choices was all about AWAs; it was all about individual agreements. Work Choices allowed agreements to slash safety nets and Work Choices slashed unfair dismissal laws and—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There should be order on both sides of the chamber when the senator is answering the question.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, Work Choices slashed unfair dismissal rights for employees. This government is putting unfair dismissal rights back on the table. Before the election, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister released the Forward with Fairness: policy implementation plan for the government’s new workplace relations system. We outlined Labor’s approach to unfair dismissal rights, covering—

Alan Ferguson (SA, Deputy-President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I would draw your attention to standing order 194(1)—and (2), for that matter—and suggest that perhaps this question is out of order.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Ferguson has raised 194(1) and 194(2) in respect of the question that has been asked. I rule that there is no point of order. I refer you to the previous rulings that have been given by the chair on this matter. You will find that my predecessors have ruled consistently that there is a fairly liberal approach—if you read Odgers, you will find that—to the way in which this has been interpreted. There is no point of order.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was outlining, the Labor government’s approach to unfair dismissal rights includes covering small businesses with fewer than 15 employees, an extended period of 12 months before small business employees can make an unfair dismissal claim and, of course, the development of a small business fair dismissal code. We reject the Howard government’s definition of a ‘small business’—100 or fewer employees—because we are getting the balance right. We are getting the balance right with Forward with Fairness. We are getting the right balance to ensure that employees do have flexibility and fairness in the employment sphere. On 24 November 2007—

Honourable Senators:

Honourable senators interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Debating time starts after question time.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I was saying, on 24 November 2007, the Australian people voted Work Choices out. For months we thought that those opposite had accepted the decision, but it looks like those opposite have not accepted the decision. They are still hanging on to Work Choices. (Time expired)

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. Can Senator Ludwig inform the Senate of how the Rudd government’s comprehensive plan for unfair dismissal, including committing to special arrangements for small businesses with fewer than 15 employees, is in the best interests of workers?

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. Can I again refer you to the point of order that Senator Ferguson made, which was, ‘A senator shall not anticipate the discussion on any subject which appears on the Notice Paper.’ Mr President, I heard you ruling on Senator Ferguson’s point of order, but, if that ruling is correct, what does this standing order possibly mean in the context of the question asked at the present time?

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Faulkner interjecting—

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! Senator Faulkner, Senator Macdonald is still on his feet taking his point of order. He is entitled to finish it.

Ian Macdonald (Queensland, Liberal Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Northern Australia) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr President, for your courtesy. If this standing order does not prevent that question, what on earth does it mean and why do we bother to refer to these standing orders at all?

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, on the point of order: in relation to standing order 194, you and your predecessors have consistently ruled, in relation to a matter on the Notice Paper, if it relates to legislation—and I assume, though it is only an assumption on my part, that that is what both Senator Ferguson and Senator Macdonald are referring to—that particular legislation would need to be identified and that provisions of the legislation would have to be addressed. There has never been any intention—

Michael Ronaldson (Victoria, Liberal Party, Shadow Special Minister of State) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Come on!

John Faulkner (NSW, Australian Labor Party, Cabinet Secretary) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is a very important point. There has never been any intention that a piece of legislation on the Notice Paper would in any way mean that a matter relating, for example, to industrial relations or unfair dismissals, as in this case, would not be subject to questioning at question time. What is off limits—and you and your predecessors, including former distinguished President Senator Ferguson, have consistently ruled this—is such matters specifically being addressed. It has always been interpreted liberally—that is, with a lowercase l, Senator Macdonald, not an uppercase L—as long as specific legislation and its provisions have not been referred to. I respectfully suggest that if Senator Macdonald does not know that, and I rather think he would, Senator Ferguson certainly does, because he consistently ruled that for the whole time he occupied the chair which you are occupying now.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On the point of order, I make no different a ruling than I did before. My predecessors have consistently ruled on this matter that it is in order for such questions to be asked. And the anticipation rule, if you read Odgers, you will find has been interpreted liberally over a long period of time. Those words are specifically out of Odgers. You will find that it is where questions go to specific clauses of the matter that is before the chamber that those questions will be ruled out of order. But, in this instance, it is a general question and I will allow the question to remain.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Pratt for her supplementary question. Before the 2007 election Labor published a comprehensive workplace relations policy. We sought and received a mandate for this policy, and now the Liberal Party is opposing it. The Liberal Party does not seem to be able to come to grips with the fact that the mandate provided ensured that we could pursue unfair dismissals. Under Work Choices employees at businesses with up to 100 workers could be dismissed for any reason without any right to challenge their sacking. Now those opposite want to reject that, want to ignore the mandate that was given to Labor to be able to pursue fairness and flexibility in the workplace. The Liberals’ definition of a small business as one with 25 full-time employees, and the Family First definition of a small business as one with 20 full-time employees, would significantly disadvantage thousands of— (Time expired)

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. I would ask you to take this matter away and come back with a ruling to the Senate. The minister just then in his answer specifically canvassed an amendment that has been circulated in the chamber, which highlights the points that my colleagues Senator Ferguson and Senator Macdonald made—that the supplementary question was on a specific issue in relation to unfair dismissals. The minister has now canvassed a specific amendment. Surely, that must be out of order, even on Senator Faulkner’s analysis.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will review the Hansard. If there is a need to come back to the chamber, I will. I stress: if there is a need.

Louise Pratt (WA, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, thank you for acknowledging that I have been referring to plans and policies and in no way reflecting on the Notice Paper. Mr President, I ask a further supplementary question. My last supplementary question to the minister is: can he please address criticisms of Labor’s plans to apply unfair dismissal protection to workers in enterprises with 15 or fewer employees, changing it from the Work Choices minimum of 100 employees? Is it too low?

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank Senator Pratt for her second supplementary question. Those opposite are stuck with Work Choices. They want to continue it. They do not recognise that it is dead.

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

Mr President, I rise on a point of order. The second supplementary deals with a specific provision that is in the bill before us, which is on the Notice Paper. Nothing could be plainer, and it should be ruled out of order.

John Hogg (President) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Senator Abetz, I have undertaken to review the questions that have been asked on this matter at the end of question time and, if necessary, come back to the chamber.

Joe Ludwig (Queensland, Australian Labor Party, Manager of Government Business in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Those opposite are extremely delicate about this. One day they say Work Choices is dead; the next day they are calling for extreme changes to the framework that the Australian people decided on. The people gave Labor a clear mandate to get rid of Work Choices to ensure that we do have fairness and flexibility in the workforce. I remind the Senate of one of the things that the member for Higgins told Insight magazine in 2005. The alternative opposition leader said:

You could have an exemption for everyone. There is no magic in the 100 limit.

…       …            …

I can’t tell you there is any magic in the number 100. If this were to work well and people were to say well in the years to come it should be extended to all companies I would be very open to the idea.

Of course, what was really happening was that Mr Costello— (Time expired)

Chris Evans (WA, Australian Labor Party, Leader of the Government in the Senate) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Mr President, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.