Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is a pleasure to rise on this important bill, the Paid Parental Leave Amendment Bill 2014. I would just note that the member for Hotham perfectly reflects the malaise and the confusion in the Labor Party about government and the role of government in our society. Not once did the words 'small business' pass her lips. She talked about consulting with families and women in her electorate but not with small business—the drivers, the engine room of our economy; those millions of enterprises employing all of our young people, and creating the jobs and innovation that we need in this country. 'Small business'—those words did not pass her lips once.

It shows a complete lack of understanding of the provisions of this bill, because this bill is primarily about lifting an administrative burden off small business and, importantly, the not-for-profit sector. This has nothing to do with changes to the Paid Parental Leave Scheme. This is an administrative amendment to save small business money—that is what this bill is about. But, as I say, the term 'small business' did not pass the member for Hotham's lips, and that is because the Labor Party do not understand small business; they do not understand its significance, and they do not care.

I also want to say that it is particularly disturbing to understand that the member for Hotham thinks that this is about the relationship between an employer and employee—a perfect reflection of the malaise in the Labor Party as to the role of government. This money that is paid to women in Australia through the Paid Parental Leave Scheme does not come from business. It comes from government—the money comes from government. The taxpayer pays for the Paid Parental Leave Scheme. And when the taxpayer pays for it, the government should administer it. It is breathtaking arrogance for the member for Hotham to suggest that it is a burden that should fall on the small business owner—that struggling person. The member for Hotham is laughing. But these people are on struggle street at the moment—these small enterprises; these family businesses. The economy is tough. Times are tough. It is hard to employ. It is hard to run a small business. People are working longer and longer hours. They are struggling under more difficult burdens of regulatory impact from the state and federal levels. It is a very difficult climate.

I speak to the business community in my electorate regularly, as well as to the families and, of course, all of the women in my electorate. But, listening to business, I understand that this is a significant burden on many of these businesses. That is what the facts show. An Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry survey showed that 84.3 per cent of businesses agreed or strongly agreed that government should not require employers to be the paymaster for the Paid Parental Leave Scheme. That is because we estimate that it is about $44 million of cost. It is not just the small business sector. It is also the not-for-profit sector.

But that, of course, has never come into the member for Hotham's consideration. It is as if, to the member for Hotham and the Labor Party, the government owns private civil society and private business: 'We can tell them to do whatever we want. We want to pay them money through the Paid Parental Leave Scheme; of course, it is business who should administer it, not the government.' But of course, when the government is footing the bill, when the taxpayer is providing the money, this administrative burden should fall on government agencies. That is where this should lie. It should be administered by Centrelink. It is cheaper to have it administered by Centrelink than to put the burden on the whole of the small business sector. It is better for small business. It is better for people in general that those businesses can continue to employ; can go better; can travel better in the economy; can pay their bills on time and function better as economic units than if they have to spend their days administering government policies.

Where does this end? Well, we do not know what the member for Hotham would envisage. If, every time a business had to provide government money to an employee, it should be administered by that business, then where does this end?

Is the member for Hotham saying we should extend all government payments to be administered by small business? How many days a week should small business owners work for the government unpaid? It is unanswered, because I do not believe the member for Hotham actually read this bill. I think she is talking about another bill that might come before this place, another change to the Paid Parental Leave Scheme, which of course is a different matter.

Today we are talking about the government's agenda to remove the red tape and regulatory burden on our small business sector in Australia. It is a significant problem. We have even heard from the Leader of the Opposition on red tape, who said:

We are committed, in a bipartisan spirit, to the organised and ongoing effort to minimise, simplify and create cost-effective regulation.

This bill is a great starting point. Why wouldn't the member for Hotham listen to the Leader of the Opposition saying that we need cost-effective regulation—$44 million of saving for the small business sector and the not-for-profit sector? Let us be clear about this: the not-for-profit sector is also going to save money under the amendments to this bill.

This is the kind of bill about which a sensible opposition—which in opposition understood what its role was in the Australian parliament and society—would say: 'We'll let this one go through, because it isn't sensible to oppose a bill that is lifting cost burdens off small business.' It is not sensible. It may take the opposition some years to learn this, but you do not just oppose everything that comes along just because it is funded. You do not conflate bills with each other when they do not go together. You do not put one bill, which is a good bill, that takes the administrative burden off small business, relieves the cost pressure and keeps our economy moving forward with other things you might want to oppose. That is what the Labor Party is opposing here—a sensible, deregulatory bill to lift the cost imposition off small business, return it to government where it belongs, that will cost the government only $7 million over five years as opposed to $44 million on individual private businesses, small business in the main.

This is a great way for the government to send a signal to the economy: 'Yes, we need you to spend that extra money you'll have in your pocket by taking on those extra hours for casual young people.' We have youth unemployment rising. We have difficulties with employment at the moment, and certainty and confidence. There can be no better signal than saying: 'Right. The government understands that small business is in a bind at the moment. We understand that the economy is not going well. We understand that we need to do everything we can to lift those practical day-to-day burdens off you. Those hours you are spending administering our paid parental leave scheme will be done by Centrelink.'

The member for Hotham says; 'This is terrible. People will have to get in touch with Centrelink.' This is a government payment. This is government money. It should be going through Centrelink. She does not address the fact that it costs business money to administer this scheme and, more importantly, it costs them time.

I know from my own discussions with a variety of small and medium businesses in my electorate and in Western Sydney that they are making up for the difficulties in the economy and in the regulatory environment by simply working longer and longer. Their quality of life is suffering. Many small business owners are saying: 'How can we get out of operating a business?' We have seen a decline in small business numbers and ownership rates. People are choosing to become employees again and not employers, because it is too difficult.

Where is the Labor Party on this question? What are they doing to assist Australians to own and operate their small businesses? They are not doing anything and, furthermore, today they are here opposing a commonsense measure to allow Centrelink to administer a government payment scheme. That is what we are proposing here today. It is absolute economic vandalism for the Labor Party to oppose a bill of this nature. It has nothing to do with any other changes to the Paid Parental Leave Scheme; it is simply to remove the administrative burden that was placed by the former government on small business.

It is also important to note Labor has a record here. The Minister for Small Business of course in opposition has proposed this amendment twice before; and the Labor Party has opposed it twice before. You did not hear the member for Hotham mention small business and you probably will not hear any of the other Labor members mention the words small business, even though they are the most significant employer and the heart of our economic survival in this country. They are ashamed to say that they are not supporting a bill that will remove the administrative costs and red tape burden on small business. Their heads are hitting the desk in shame.

Mr Snowdon interjecting—

Ms MacTiernan interjecting—

While I take the members' interjections, I think it is important to note that some people have criticised this bill on the grounds that, if you allow opt in, not many people will opt in. But the government is keen to allow for workplace flexibility, and it is important to note that many of the members' concerns opposite are fully addressed by this important part of the amendment—that is, if someone wants to retain the existing arrangements, employer and employee, they will be allowed to opt in. It is an opt-in scheme, giving the flexibility for people who want to retain their current arrangements. If small business owners and employees who currently have these arrangements find them effective, they can retain them if they want to—not those businesses who say, 'This takes a long time and it's very costly to my small business,' 'Gee, I would rather spend that money on new equipment' or 'Gee, I would rather spend that money on adding casual hours employing a young person for two or three more hours. If every small business in the country did that, we would have a lot less youth unemployment and a lot less drain on the public purse in terms of welfare payments and other things. The Labor Party will not consider here today that opposition to this bill will directly impact upon small businesses' ability to put extra young people on for casual hours and to do more of their essential economic activities by not allowing them to get on with their job, which is running their businesses.

It is important to note that the government has flexibility built into its scheme. It is important to note that the median hours identified by all organisations—that is, the average—was 22 hours. Of course that includes some larger organisations but that is still an enormous amount of hours for the median. Time is money is an old saying, and I know the Labor Party would not understand what that meant or what that referred to, but time is money in business—22 hours is a lot of money on average. That means some organisations are spending a lot more time administering the Labor government's scheme, working for the government and not being able to create, employ and grow. It is really quite shameful when you get down do it: imagine a small business spending several hours administering this scheme. Let's do something to alleviate the burden. Let's get on with ensuring small business spend its day focused on what it should be doing—its business and the functioning of its business. Let's be sure not to conflate this issue with other matters of paid parental leave and other matters of child assistance and support because this amendment bill has nothing to do with those issues. Every Labor member that gets up to speak about the government's proposed Paid Parental Leave Scheme or other matters is simply engaging in hyperbole. Those opposite know this is a good quality amendment.

This amendment is about lifting administrative burdens and costs off business and returning them to where they belong. Government payments belong in the administration of government, not on the backs of our small businesses and family businesses, which are the backbone of the Australian economy. Government administration belongs in government. This is an exceptionally good amendment. It is the government keeping its election commitments to lift the red tape regulatory burden off the backs of small and medium enterprises in our country and get them doing what they do best—that is, creating, growing and employing.

See this speech in context