David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I do appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014. I did listen to the member for Adelaide's contribution. Whilst I understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, that you do apply a wide discretion in taking on the contributions of different members, the bill we are speaking about today is the bill that relates to the abolition of the pay clerk process which is currently required of business—and I did not actually hear the member mention that once during the 15 minutes of her contribution. So let us get to the topic at hand today, which is that very important red tape reduction measure. This has, of course, been championed by the Minister for Small Business for some time—going back a couple of years, in fact, when he moved a private member's bill.

The importance of this measure is, frankly, self-evident. One of the key priorities of this government is to get the administrative burden of red tape off the backs of Australian business. People who are in business have a huge number of matters to attend to. They need to win customers; they need to develop products; they need to plan for their future; and, indeed, they need to hire the best staff. None of that is easy and it all takes time. The thing you want in business is to be burdened by non-value-adding processes that just simply tie you up in knots and do not help you to build the future of your business. Sensibly, the government has taken the decision to remove that administrative burden off the backs of Australian business and, indeed, non-profits and to have the government manage that process for them.

That to me would seem to be very sensible and a very unobjectionable sort of measure. It is very difficult to understand why anyone would be opposed to that. To the extent that we care about business and to the extent we care about the economy, you would like to think that there would be a shared goal of making that as straightforward as possible for small, medium and larger businesses. We all know that some degree of compliance is a necessary part of the system, but we want to minimise it and we certainly do not want to put unnecessary burdens on small business.

When this matter was discussed in the Senate back in March, Labor and the Greens sought to amend the discussion so that it would only apply to businesses with 20 or fewer people. They question is: why would you do that? I cannot think of any sensible reason that you would do that. I listened earlier today to the member for Hotham—who generally makes some quite sensible contributions. But today she said that she was concerned that this would sever the link between the employer and the employee in relation to the payment of this particular amount. It is very unclear about why there needs to be a link and why it is a problem to sever that.

What are the sorts of links we want between employers and employees? We want them to have the time for an employee to come forward with a great idea for the business and to say, 'What if we do it this way?' or 'What if we create this new product?' or 'What if we try to win this customer who we perhaps have not focused on as much as we should have?' That is what we want the relationship between employers and employees to be about. We do not want the relationship to be one of filling out forms, ticking boxes and spending that time at seven or eight o'clock at night when there are much better things to be doing than filling out forms on behalf of the government. I am genuinely mystified as to why the opposition would not support this measure. It is interesting that so many of those opposite speaking in this debate have not actually mentioned this specific legislation. In fact, the member or Adelaide did not mention it at all and others touched on it very tangentially in their remarks.

The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry surveyed business and asked that simple question: do you think you should be required to be a paymaster for this sort of payment? Unsurprisingly, 84 per cent of businesses said, 'No; we should not. Frankly, we have better things to worry about and we shouldn't be required to spend all of this time on this compliance measure.' In fact, those organisations identified a cost of $1,783 on average—quite a precise average—to implement the PPL. Those opposite will maybe say that $1,783 is no big deal. Well, it is a big; it is a very big deal. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Kelly, many small businesses in particular are simply struggling to make ends meet and to keep the doors open. The place where small businesses often sacrifice is the salary that they pay to themselves, as the operator of the small business, when things are not going so well. That $1,783 could well be the difference in direct income to the owner of the small business, many of whom are on very modest incomes.

There is a $48 million saving nationally, including importantly $4 million for the non-profit-sector. Just as business does not want to be tied up doing non-valuable things, neither does the non-profit sector. It is a $4 million saving for them. Should employers and employees collectively decide that they would like to continue with this payment arrangement—and I am not quite clear why they would—and elect to do so, they can. But the general position with the passage of this bill will be that businesses do not have to worry about this anymore—and that can only be a good thing.

There have been some interesting contributions in this debate. The member for Shortland earlier today comprehensively rejected the idea that only people who earned over $100,000 per year should be encouraged to have children. I support her in that. I am not sure what relevance it had to any legislation that is before the House, but I am looking forward to seeing the Hansard on that one.

This is a very straightforward measure on red tape reduction and is consistent with a much broader red tape reduction agenda on behalf of the government. Of course, Mr Deputy Speaker, you, like other members of the House, were here earlier in the year when the member for Kooyong brought forward a wide range of red tape reduction measures. Again, reducing red tape is one of those sentiments that we all seemingly agree on at a high level; but it is interesting that, when it gets down to the practical reality of reducing red tape, we see very different attitudes on the different sides of the House. A great initiative on that repeal day relates to job service providers, who provide a very important function in the community. Previously, they had to keep paper documents of all of their various contacts with potential job seekers and so on. In this day and age, the hard drive is really all you need. So it is a very sensible change to allow those records to be submitted electronically. Similarly, universities, which are such an important part of our society, are no longer required to submit those duplicative reports about how they are using their facilities, offices and so on. This is a very important red tape reduction measure. There are a wide range of red tape reduction measures, and this bill is an important contributor to that.

As others in this debate have raised the broader issues around a paid parental leave, I thought I would do so as well, because there are important contrasts here. The coalition in a very sensible and cautious manner has provided in the budget for a sustainable economic future—a sustainable future where we live within our means and where we are conscious of managing things carefully so as to secure that future. When you do manage the budget carefully, you are able to make investments in priority areas, and paid parental leave is one of those areas. The levy on large businesses, which substantially covers the cost of the scheme, is how it is funded. There is really a very clear distinction here. The Labor Party says that, if you earn more than a minimum wage, when you get pregnant and need to take leave, you should take a pay cut. That is the essence of their position. Let us say you are earning $45,000 or $50,000. What those opposite say should happen is that you should take a substantial pay cut for the purpose of going on maternity leave. They do not make that argument in relation to holiday pay. They do not make that argument in relation to sick leave. But they do make that argument—and in fact that is their legislation—in relation to maternity leave.

Think of the example of a woman who perhaps obtains a job on $45,000 a year. She works hard. She owes commitment to that organisation. She is promoted a couple of times and gets a couple of pay rises. She is perhaps working full time and is paid $55,000 or $60,000 a year. She is then required to take leave for maternity purposes. Under those opposite's policy, she then takes a very substantial pay cut for the purpose of being on maternity leave. It is important to understand that this relates to women who are earning average incomes—$45,000 according to the ABS—across both full-time and part-time employees. This is about the average. It is a significantly higher amount for full-time employees. What those opposite say—and we need to emphasise this, because it is a very important point—is: 'Take a pay cut. Take a big pay cut, while you go on maternity leave.' For people who are earning $45,000, $46,000, $47,000 or $48,000, this is what the ALP thinks should happen.

We know that the position of those opposite is not taken on economic grounds. The notion that those opposite would put forward anything on the grounds of economic conservatism is absurd. They are, after all, the people who have not passed a surplus budget since 1989, when, as we discussed the other evening, Kylie and Jason were still singing duets. So it is a very long time ago.

So it is not economic grounds; it is ideological grounds. Those opposite think that everyone should be paid the minimum wage when they are on maternity leave even if they are earning a little bit more than the minimum wage. Why would those opposite, who claim to champion the interests of ordinary working Australians, say to those ordinary working Australians on average incomes: 'Take a pay cut. Take a big pay cut'? I do not understand that. Indeed, in the OECD, which those opposite are often keen to quote, only two nations do not have a replacement wage system for maternity leave. That is certainly worth noting.

The legislation before the House is a very good piece of law. It will save Australian businesses $44 million in compliance costs. It will save the non-profit sector some $4 million in compliance costs. It is absolutely consistent with our broad goal of getting the monkey of red tape off the back of Australian business.

Government needs to know its place, and that place is not to impose unnecessary burdens on those who create productivity. Governments do not create economic activity. Governments do not create wealth. Businesses create wealth. Individuals create wealth. Government must judiciously use some of that wealth for taxation purposes, but what it must never do is impose unnecessary burdens on small, medium-size and larger businesses. That is what the current legislation does, and it needs to be changed.

See this speech in context