Nola Marino (Forrest, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I commend the member for Dunkley on the Paid Parental Leave (Reduction of Compliance Burden for Employers) Amendment Bill 2010. I think the title of this bill says it all: the ‘reduction of compliance burden for employers’ amendment. That is wholly and solely what this is about. It does not cause any delay. There are no uncertainties about paid parental leave. This is all about the reduction of the compliance burden for employers, particularly small businesses. I have over 14,000 of those in the south-west, Member for Dunkley, and they are the backbone of Australia, as you have rightly pointed out, and yet we are constantly seeing examples of how this government has no understanding of those same small businesses, how they operate and what small business people do in the course of their days. They do not sit around drinking coffee; they are the ones who have to work days and nights just to keep their businesses operating, often on very tight margins. They have really seriously committed to their small businesses. But this government is directly and deliberately imposing a further burden on small business—on owners and operators who work in their businesses as well as on their businesses, often every single day. They have often mortgaged their house and every single other asset to finance their small business venture. The small businesses tell me constantly that government regulation and red tape are major costs and burdens for small business, and yet we are going to see an increase here.

I have very serious concerns about the additional workload and compliance costs this PPL scheme will have on small-to-medium businesses. This Paid Parental Leave scheme will add significantly to their cost and burden. It will be a serious administrative burden on small businesses to have to make time just to understand their obligations and responsibilities. That will cost them because they will not actually be working on or in their business. The costs and risks of compliance to their business if they have staff include training their staff, managing the system and changing the payroll and accounting systems, as the member for Dunkley has previously said. They include the processes of receiving, handling, processing and paying in a timely manner instalment amounts and the fines that would be imposed. If you were a small business and you knew you were going to be fined for this, you would be seriously concerned about your role in this. So this really comes on the back of small business at the moment facing significant costs in accessing finance and in interest rates, and now here we have a government that is adding further administrative burdens and costs, preventing the small business owners and operators from working in or on their business.

We should not underestimate the challenges to small-to-medium businesses in finding replacement workers for the parental leave period either—and it will be quite difficult. I see that Julia Gillard said:

Labor will not support a system that imposes additional financial burdens or administrative complexity on small businesses or in any way acts as a discouragement to the employment of women …

I have to say that that is what I am seriously concerned about with these additional compliance costs, burdens, risks and costs to small business. Some small businesses may be forced to make the decision to potentially not employ women. I think that is a real issue. There is a further quote from the Tasmanian Small Business Council:

Paid parental leave is a fact of life in most of the western world and small business owners are happy to see it introduced in Australia. However, the move by the Government to make the business owners responsible for making the parental payments shows little or no real understanding of the culture of small businesses …

That is something that we on this side, with our experience in small business, are very directly aware of and concerned about, which is why the member for Dunkley has introduced this bill. We want to reduce the administrative and compliance burden from small business owners and operators. Centrelink’s Family Assistance Office is and should be the paymaster for the government’s scheme. They could well also have to handle the practical issues and queries that will be ongoing in dealing with this. It should be done through that source. The taxpayers’ funding that the government is already expending to set this up should simply be used to the best effect. As I said earlier, I am seriously concerned that there may be some small businesses that will be forced to look at this and say, ‘I am seriously concerned about employing women.’ I very strongly support the member for Dunkley’s bill that the Family Assistance Office should administer this Paid Parental Leave scheme.

See this speech in context