Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Hansard source

I have a question directly for the minister in relation to this legislation. As we have outlined already, the minister has not engaged with small business on the impact of this legislation—and she has literally just voted to shut down pathways and the regulatory impact statement—so we have done her job for her. We've had a number of people contact us who have questions they want to ask of the minister, and I will read out some of the questions that we are now going to put to her and that we'd like answers to.

Firstly, small businesses require owners to work in the business, to be bookkeepers, to know all tax laws, to know all work-care laws, to know all retail and wage laws and to make sure everything is on paper. The penalties are great if this work is not done. Big businesses have accountants and HR personnel—things small business can't afford. At present, we have good businesses closing down which can't sell. No-one wants the stress, pressure and long hours for what is now little reward. It's easier to have a government job with shorter hours, large penalty rates, holidays, sick leave et cetera. The question from that point, Minister, is: how large would an HR department need to expand to under this legislation for a small business?

Secondly, industrial relations can be a great thing to protect workers rights when done in moderation; however, when there are too many hurdles or cost hikes for small businesses, they often go broke and then—guess what?—they have to lay off staff. Can the minister advise the House what assessment has been completed on the number of people who will be laid off as a consequence of this legislation?

Thirdly, as a separate issue, I am a parent of a teenager who has actively looked for employment. As an employer and when I speak to other employers there's a real disincentive to employ younger workers. It's certainly something my daughter is experiencing. The question for the minister is: how many younger workers will be put off as a consequence of this legislation?

Fourthly, the security industry, for many years, has operated on 12-hour shifts. This allows for maximum time off and family friendly rosters—a very important thing, I might add. Currently our security patrol officer works seven 12-hour shifts each fortnight. We pay the night shift allowances and Saturday, Sunday and public holiday rates on these days when they are worked. We not pay overtime on the 12-hour shifts as the advantage to the employee is a trade-off benefit. Currently, a security officer on the standard roster earns about $87,000 a year, working for less than six months of the year. Should the upcoming legislation interfere with the roster system, we would be forced to revert to six-hour shifts each night.

The question for the minister is: have you looked at the impact on the security sector, particularly at the impact it might have on rosters?

Fifthly, people forget that the price of their goods at the supermarkets are inflated to compensate for this variation in wages over the weekend, and, for supermarkets, I think penalty rates come in at about 6 pm. I think the argument from the unions would be that they are unsociable hours. We work out what goods would cost if they added on penalty rates, and that's what small business then has to pay. Of course it has a direct impact on things like the price of coffee et cetera.

Sally McManus was on television this morning complaining about bosses burning their staff out. It's not bosses that are burning people out; it's the current Labor governments, especially the one in Victoria, putting more and more costs into small business, so small-business owners have got no choice but to cut, and the easiest place to cut is, of course, labour. There are a lot of people working longer hours and harder to make up the difference. Has the minister looked into these issues?

Lastly, if not a death sentence for some, this could also mean the difference between employment and unemployment for currently unemployed workers. It's fairly clear that Labor cares more about satisfying the unions by strengthening their monopoly on IR, rather than supporting small business. Of course, this is no surprise as they are all trade unionists. Is this legislation simply designed to feed the trade union movement and pay off their pay masters?

See this speech in context