House debates

Tuesday, 8 May 2012

Bills

Paid Parental Leave and Other Legislation Amendment (Dad and Partner Pay and Other Measures) Bill 2012; Second Reading

5:27 pm

Photo of Bruce BillsonBruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Hansard source

following the member for Throsby. I will make sure that is the case. But thank you for pointing that out. It was a valuable contribution, my colleague!

Those are the arrangements in place. They are legally obliged to participate; that is why employers are there. To say that that represents an 'embracing' that extends to the administrative systems, the red-tape obligations, the compliance costs and the risk of fines is an absolute nonsense and a blatant misrepresentation of employer attitudes towards these issues. Let me go to some of the views that the employers have expressed. I hope that the crossbenchers take some of these views into account, particularly the member for Lyne, whom, I must say, I was extremely disappointed in for not supporting this measure last time it was debated when he then fronted up at the National Press Club on 4 March to say:

… I am currently urging both the Government and Opposition to start thinking about a small business compliance strategy.

He went on to talk about the additional compliance challenges imposed by the Paid Parental Leave scheme. That was just days after he voted against reducing the compliance burden on small business. I hope he is serious about that particular initiative. Even the government itself as recently as early March was talking about the meeting it had with business leaders regarding cutting red tape being a key priority for the Gillard government. This was in the communique, which says:

… as excessive regulation lowers business costs—

no, it actually increases business costs—

and hinders productivity.

That statement from the Prime Minister goes on to say:

Small business will also be directly represented on the Forum, given smaller firms often disproportionately feel the impact of regulatory burdens.

These are all honourable objectives, but do something about it, I urge the government. Actually follow through on those fine words by embracing the amendments when we get the opportunity to detail them, when consideration in detail arises.

For those who are under any doubt about why these changes need to take place, about why the red-tape burden should be reduced by the measures that we will be advocating in more detail later, have a look at the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry's contribution. It says:

The industrial relations system is already complex enough … without the government adding an unnecessary level of red tape on parental leave.

It goes on to talk about how the system operates well through the Family Assistance Office. That is how it operates in New Zealand. Why doesn't the government do it here? The Western Australian chamber of commerce and industry called for reimbursement from the Commonwealth for this paymaster role, criticising it as an unnecessary imposition on employers. The NSW Business Chamber similarly made the point that Paid Parental Leave should not incorporate costs that need to be carried by small business. There were also contributions from the Retailers Association, pointing out the way the government has designed the administration of the scheme is a 'costly, time consuming administrative nightmare.' VECCI echoed those remarks. COSBOA are supportive of these measures. Even the former Queensland government was urging the federal government to change its mind. It conveyed, through the then parliamentary secretary Jan Jarratt, that Queensland Small Business Advisory Council members were urging the government to change its way and not mandate these pay clerk requirements on the Commonwealth.

When announcing this policy before the 2007 election, the Prime Minister herself said there would be no new imposts on small business. When these detailed amendments come forward to give smaller employers and all employers not in a position to or disinclined to carry out this unnecessary administrative burden, it is time to back up the talk with action. I urge the House to do the right thing: cut the red tape and support those amendments— (Time expired)

Comments

No comments