Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

I move:

That all words after "That" be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:

"whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House:

(1) notes:

(a) the Coalition's strong record supporting government funded paid parental leave;

(b) the former Government's commitment to supporting women's participation in the workforce saw women's participation reach record highs;

(c) at both the 2010 and 2013 federal elections, the Coalition's paid parental leave policy sought to deliver 26 weeks paid parental leave based on actual wage;

(d) both Labor and the Greens opposed the Coalition's paid parental leave policy; and

(e) the current paid parental leave scheme disproportionately adversely impacts smaller businesses, imposing an additional red-tape burden on small businesses by making them the pay clerk for the Government's paid parental leave scheme; and

(2) calls on the Government to amend the Paid Parental Leave Act to require the Secretary, as defined by the Act, to pay parental leave pay instalments directly to employees of small businesses except in cases where a small business opts to pay parental leave pay instalments directly to an employee".

The amendment seeks to highlight a couple of things. Of course we're going to support the bill, but we really need to make some things clear. There are a number of people in this chamber who will come into the House on every single occasion and speak very passionately about why they believe 26 weeks of paid parental leave is such a worthy cause, both from an economic perspective and from a fairness perspective, and many of them are the same people who opposed the coalition's 26 weeks of paid parental leave, which, again, we took to two elections and on which we received a mandate when we were elected in 2013. They argued against it, presumably because it wasn't their idea. So now we find that 10 years later—in fact, it will be 12 years later—we'll get to 26 weeks of paid parental leave. Those who just a few short years ago did not support paid parental leave of 26 weeks include a minister.

So there's huge hypocrisy, and I think Australians recall the very vociferous opposition to 26 weeks of paid parental leave from the Labor Party at that time. Most Australians won't be particularly surprised by the hypocrisy of the Labor Party and their attempts to be wreckers while in opposition. Now they are seeking to atone, I suspect, for that opposition that they—in, I think, an unprincipled way—went forward with while in opposition. We won't adopt a similar unprincipled position. I have always supported 26 weeks of paid parental leave myself, and obviously our party has, so we will support this bill notwithstanding the concerns we have with some particular aspects of the scheme.

Most notably, as I outlined in my amendment to the second reading of the bill, in essence there are certain payments—depending on what an employee adopts as their favoured mechanism of receiving paid parental leave—that require small businesses to administer and pay the paid parental leave, as opposed to Services Australia, which would be the customary thing to do. I don't think it's beyond the ability of the government to amend the legislation and to say to small businesses—quite frankly, small businesses that are struggling under a Labor economy, struggling under an economically restrictive environment imposed on them by a Labor government: 'We will make this minor amendment to ensure that this isn't an additional burden placed on you.'

We think that's wholly consistent with the view that we want, to the greatest extent possible, to maintain a relationship between an employee and their employer during a period of leave, however they choose to take that—whether they take that as a single period or whether they take it over a period of time—and, indeed, for partner pay as well. The best way to facilitate that relationship is to make it as easy as possible for small businesses. I think there's a general principle on this side of the chamber that we believe that, where a government imposes a duty on, particularly, a small business, it should do everything it possibly can to ensure that that small business is not required to pick up additional regulatory impost. That's what will happen here. So we again call on the minister to do some of that work. That work should have already been done, quite frankly.

I think the small business sector, throughout this process, made clear their reservations with respect to this aspect of the bill. We were quite surprised, I must say, that the government didn't seek to amend that, to place the obligation on the government, through Services Australia, to administer those payments, as opposed to transferring that requirement onto small businesses. It's quite remarkable that the government wouldn't have listened through that consultation. It begs the question: why on earth would you consult small businesses for their views on these measures and then entirely ignore what they've said to you? It's a bit like the bill we were just debating. If you ask for that consultation or advice—I think most Australians would agree—it's reasonable for a small business to say, 'You're imposing an additional impost on us.'

Unless they, as small businesses, elect to make those payments directly themselves, our amendment requests the government to ensure that they don't have to do that. We think the amendment spells out, clearly, best practice here. Give small businesses an opportunity to be the pay clerk if they want to, but, if it's a burden that they cannot wear in a reasonable way, then it should become the primary obligation of the government, through Services Australia, to do that.

Again, we're quite surprised that they haven't listened. I've got in front of me the submission from the Motor Trades Association of Australia. The MTAA submission noted:

…the current (and future) impost on small business employers to act as the administrative payment intermediary between the Commonwealth and new parent employees is unwarranted and disproportionately adversely impacts smaller businesses.

We are told by the MTAA that, for the 246 businesses which completed their survey, it added to the payroll processing time for nearly 91 per cent of respondents, increased the administrative burden on business for about 92 per cent and—this is probably the most concerning aspect in this economic environment—created cashflow problems for nearly a third, or 32.1 per cent, of respondents.

So, at a time when we have—let's be frank—a Labor economy and a Labor minister and government in a way that ensures that we have more sluggish growth and higher inflation and we are seeing insolvencies and liquidations creeping higher and higher, the government has brought forward a bill that will create cashflow problems for nearly one-third of all members of the Motor Trades Association who participated in this survey. Then, having been given that evidence, they've wilfully ignored it and proceeded without changing their proposal.

This is not a remarkably difficult thing to do. If we had a government that cared about small businesses and the families that are generally the backbone of those small businesses, it would make this change. It is absolutely reasonable for the small businesses to have made that recommendation. The National Electrical and Communications Association made very clear, through their members, that they'd prefer Services Australia to pay PPL directly to all staff members. In its submission to the inquiry, the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman concluded:

For many small and family businesses, the costs associated with administering the scheme are magnified as they do not have the existing organisational capability or internal expertise to implement complex processes. Allowing small businesses to 'opt-in' to administering the scheme or have Services Australia administer the payment directly to the employee will reduce the disproportionate regulatory burden on the sector, while allowing businesses to administer the scheme if they prefer.

What on earth is controversial about that? Why on earth would the minister ignore that? Do some work. I know it's inconvenient. I know it's difficult sometimes when you get advice that you don't like, when you have dragged your feet a bit and you don't really want to have to change something and all the processes that go along with it, but Australian businesses will suffer as a result. The overwhelmingly good objective of delivering 26 weeks of paid parental leave albeit staggered over a period of time does not of itself absolve the government of its responsibility to implement those changes in a way that makes it as easy as possible for small businesses to cope and, indeed, through their own stated objective, to facilitate a relationship between an employer and an employee.

I would have thought that, when you have the Motor Trades Association, who are one of many of the organisations that represent stereotypical mum-and-dad small businesses, come out and so clearly and reasonably articulate to the government what the limitations are on their proposal and, importantly, don't just come along with a complaint or an axe to grind but actually then suggest what an administrative fix could be, for the government to ignore that is pretty extraordinary. I think it says a lot about this government.

Most people have suspicions about Labor governments essentially working through the wish list of their union paymasters and not having much consideration for small businesses, but, even so, moments like this are still pretty surprising, because this is not controversial. Again, having nearly 92 per cent of respondents tell the government that it will increase processing times and be an administrative burden on their business and a third of businesses saying that it will create cashflow problems for them should on its own should have been enough for the minister to do some extra work and get the bill right. It's not a huge burden on Services Australia to administer these payments under the scheme as they administer other payments.

It's being imposed by the government—quite rightly; it's good policy—so why on earth would you impose that on a small business that's not capable of administering it? In fact, it runs counter to the stated objective of trying to bring employers and employees in these circumstances closer together.

If the government change this when it gets to the Senate, we'll give them credit for finally listening to the feedback that's been given to them. Why on earth ask for feedback from small businesses then ignore it when they come back with something that's eminently sensible? Is that a discussion that goes on in the minister's office, where the minister gets the advisers around the room and they just say: 'No. It's all in the too-hard basket. Let's just keep ploughing on with what we've got. We can't be bothered. We can't be stuffed changing this. It's just a few small businesses that are going to suffer'?

I find it pretty extraordinary that this didn't change. Our full expectation, following that feedback and how overwhelming it was, was that the government would come back and include that quite minor administrative fix to alleviate those potential problems for small businesses. The fact that they haven't done so, sadly, says a lot about the way in which this government seeks advice and ignores it. I'm not sure if that's pigheadedness, inertia or just being slack. I'm not sure which of them it is, but in any event you have circumstances where Australians suffer. Here we'll have small businesses suffering. Small businesses are overwhelmingly family businesses, people who pay the rent first, staff second, tax third and themselves last. Now further obligations are being imposed on them, under this PPL amendment bill, to be the pay clerk for employees in certain circumstances where, in the ordinary course of events, Services Australia would be administering these payments.

Inconvenient though it may be at times for the government, we in the coalition will always stand up for small businesses: the people who by and large, other than through some large representative groups, don't have the ability to come and stalk the halls here and knock on ministers' doors and seek an audience with a minister to put their case, like many of the large unions do. These are small business who just rely on their local representatives to do the right thing by them. Sadly, in this instance, their local representatives on the government benches have completely ignored them by refusing to make some very minor changes to this bill that would have been consistent with the feedback they received. For that reason, I've moved the amendment, and I again call on the government to see some common sense at the eleventh hour. We'll give you credit for finally listening if you do. I know it will be a bit of extra work, but—let's be frank—there's not a huge amount on the plate of the government, with a fairly thin legislative agenda. So do some extra work and help our small businesses, as opposed to asking for their advice and completely ignoring them.

See this speech in context