Bob Brown (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source

The question is: is the government right to stand by 15, endorsed by the people of Australia, in a defining election which rejected Work Choices, when it is not endorsed by the Senate? I think it should. The debate we have had is about whether the threshold should be 15, 20 or 25, and whether it be full-time, full-time equivalent or simply a head count of the people working in an enterprise. One gets the clear impression that it would not matter what number was put forward by the government here, there would be argument, from the opposition at least—if not the Independents on the cross bench—that it ought be higher. Of course, the same lobbying forces would apply. But here is the question to Senator Xenophon, Senator Fielding and the opposition: are you really prepared to force a double dissolution on the definition of small business being 20, rather than 15 as endorsed by the people of Australia at the election of 2007?

Senator Boyce shakes her head to say yes. I ask that a little bit of thought be given to that, and I ask that a little bit of probity and responsibility be brought to this question. There are important issues in this legislation about the relationship between employers and employees in a country which is defined by the term—to quote the frequent statement of the last Prime Minister—‘a fair go’. Is it a fair go to have the Australian people back at the ballot box because the opposition and two crossbenchers in this place did not accept the adjudication of the Australian people at the last ballot box? I do not think so. I think it would be very easy to get locked into a pursuit of supplanting the figure 15 with 20 or 25 as a test of wills, but the consequences would be quite great, if not quite grave. I do not think the Australian people want to be confronted with a vote again by an intransigent opposition or two members of the crossbench on this defining matter.

The government was elected by the Australian people, above all issues, rejecting Work Choices. The government made it clear—and who of us watching this matter can forget—that it would define ‘small business’ in the context of this legislation as one with 15 or fewer employees. It was very, very clear to the Australian people in 2007, and they endorsed it.

I say to my colleagues in this place who might want to make a stand on this: this is not the issue that should bring down this legislation. If there is some other matter then let it be brought forward. The argument will be had about why the number of employees should be five or indeed 10 higher. We will hear about the changed economic climate, but the argument goes both ways. That economic climate also makes it tougher on employees. We are talking about circumstances in which, for every employer, there are 15 employees. All components of this Senate recognise that 15 is not the cut-off as far as a rejection of any further unfair dismissal provision is concerned. They are simplified but they remain there, as Senator Xenophon just pointed out.

So that is it—this is a defining issue. I put it to my fellow senators: are we really going to obstruct the government on an issue on which the people clearly backed this government, to the point where another election may be forced later this year? Let me counsel members thinking about that to go down that road and think about the consequences. It would be unfair to the Australian people, who have made a judgment on this. It would not be responsible as far as electoral politics are concerned. Sure, if this was new, if this was an issue that had not been canvassed, if this government had been elected on other matters and were suddenly bringing this in here—like the Howard government was elected on other matters and brought Work Choices in here—the people might judge that badly at the next election. But I can tell you what will happen at the next election if this becomes a stumbling block: the people will judge those who made it a stumbling block—and the Senate is the clear arbiter on this matter—very badly indeed. Like my colleagues, I could go into the minutiae—and they are important—about these numbers. But, ultimately, the people have voted on this matter, and I do not think the Senate should defy the people’s judgment. That would be very unwise. So my counsel is that, while the argument is being put forward to change the numbers, the Senate think about this and accept the judgment of the people in 2007—or face the ire of the people in 2009. That is what we are really debating here.

I ask my fellow crossbenchers, Senator Fielding and Senator Xenophon, to think carefully about that. But I ask that particularly of the opposition—you were punished over Work Choices. You were punished over this Senate being turned into a failure of a watchdog—