Maria Kovacic (NSW, Liberal Party, Shadow Assistant Minister to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Hansard source

I've spoken before about the regulatory burdens that small businesses in this country are experiencing, particularly the constant stream of new compliance burdens from this government. I spoke as well about businessowners spending some 15 hours a week on compliance time, taking away from serving their customers, from hiring staff, from growing their business or even, heaven forbid, from spending time with their families on the weekends. Unlike large organisations, these small operators cannot readily absorb this resource drain or these costs, and the result is fewer jobs, less competition and more market power being handed to big business instead of small business. COSBOA and other business groups invited to the productivity round table/talkfest have warned that this bill will discourage employment and drag down productivity. These are important things to worry about.

You've said you cannot say how many small businesses will be impacted or what the real cost will be. I think it's unfair to assert that none will be impacted, because it is clear that there is a retrospective element to this bill, whether the government wants to accept or not, and these businesses are facing record insolvencies, high compliance obligations and rising operational costs. I can talk through some more words around that, but what I'm trying to say to you here is that things are really, really hard for Australian small businesses.

It's tough. They're struggling. Many are struggling to stay afloat. Many business owners are not taking salaries or payments themselves, in order to ensure that they can keep their staff, keep their doors open and keep serving their community. What we're worried about is the fact that this legislation adds yet another layer of confusion and complexity.

I acknowledge that you say that you do not accept or do not agree with the evidence provided at the Senate inquiry. But there was substantive and compelling evidence that suggests that small businesses will be significantly impacted by this legislative change. That's what we're trying to do with these important amendments—protect, and ensure we protect, those businesses. In protecting them, we're actually protecting Australian workers, because, if an Australian small business closes its doors, then that employee loses their job. It's not one versus the other.

I owned a number of small businesses for a number of years. One of my key priorities was to ensure that my employees were well paid and happy and that their work arrangements suited them. I had a number of people with flexible work arrangements, and that is really important. Small businesses aren't the bad guy here. I have a concern that this is being labelled as one versus the other. We are trying to protect the interests of Australian small businesses, which are entirely consistent— (Quorum formed)Ultimately, what we are trying to do is protect Australian small businesses, protect Australian workers and ensure that their right to make mutually beneficial agreements remains, particularly as it relates to flexibility and working from home.

I have asked you this question in a different frame before, but I will ask you now differently. Given the evidence that has come out from the scrutiny via the Senate inquiry, will the government look at doing some modelling as to the potential impacts to small business of this bill, particularly in hours and dollars, as it relates to compliance burden?