Peter Strong: Does Labor care for small business? Not really
Close scrutiny of Labor policy suggests the small business community is being taken for a ride at a time when they most need practical assistance, says Peter Strong.
In many ways, Labor has started its time in government well and is directly confronting many important issues. The Albanese administration is very different from the Hawke/Keating governments, an ALP highpoint, in that it is about big government and centralisation of power and decision-making.
Labor has also, perhaps not consciously, copied the approach of the Howard government to small business — we are hearing lots of good rhetoric and seeing a lot of attention — but the opposite in action. The role of the small business minister, then as now, was to shut down criticism and convince small business advocates that all would be good — when it wasn’t.
There are some recent outcomes that on the surface appear good for small business. But closer scrutiny suggests the small business community is being taken for a ride at a time when it most needs practical assistance.
On the good side of the ledger, the government announced that it would continue the strengthening of Unfair Contract Terms legislation started by the previous government. These changes, together with proposed competition reforms, are very welcome indeed for small business and therefore for the economy. They will help small business owners operating in, for example, shopping centres run by faceless greedy multinational landlords and property developers; or those dealing with bullying large suppliers and corporate competition.
The government also announced some excellent support for small business folk with a significant increase in funding for mental health assistance through Beyond Blue. This focus is welcome but the support came by reallocating funds originally meant for the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, which was to use the resources to target businesses affected by natural disasters, of which we have a few.
The best way to manage mental health is to be there at the time stress is occurring (ie in a disaster) not wait until the mental health issues arise. This announcement was virtue signalling, saying ‘we care’, when it actually doesn’t confront the mental health problem until after the event. Not OK.
There will be an extra $3.4 million to assist small businesses to deal with the government’s plan to legislate 10 days of paid family domestic violence leave. The funding will go towards “education, technical advice and support services”. That wording is ominous — the government proposes ‘education’? What this means is the government realises how poorly targeted the leave is as it should be managed by the experts — the social welfare sector — not by employers.
This also admits that the proposal imposes more red tape and process, thus the need to ‘educate’ small business people as though they are idiots. It also means the government can fine them and maybe even put them in jail if they get it wrong. This approach will also not assist with mental health for small business people or for the victims of domestic violence.
The decrease in funding for the entrepreneurs’ program is also disturbing. This program has been very successful. A recent Australian National Audit Office review shows concerns about targeting and some other issues; this was a reason to revise the program but not to slash funding. While a Labor government will always focus more on workers, surely having well-trained and supported small business owners is good for their employees?
The biggest concern is the industrial relations changes. The government’s approach to the modern workplace is nothing but ideology and cronyism becoming policy. This has been highlighted very well by the peak employer bodies — AIG, BCA and ACCI. The legislation is a trojan horse, as emphasised by the CEO of ACCI, for the empowerment of unions in every workplace in Australia.
The government is using a lot of smoke and mirrors in its rhetoric on this issue. An example is where it increased funding for the Fair Work Commission to support small businesses to participate in enterprise bargaining. This is claimed to be funding for small businesses. It isn’t, it is funding for the union movement.
No small business person has ever said “Gee I’d like to be able to bargain with the unions”.
Small business doesn’t need to participate in the complications of enterprise bargaining with unions — they just need modern simple awards.
In the past small business advocates succeeded in getting a better focus on small businesses as people. These advocates ensured that the government fully understood the nature of small business in Australia. That was achieved by an aggressive peak body not stymied by political allegiance or economic ideology; it was equally achieved by aggressive and supportive small business ministers.
Today, rather than stridently and fearlessly championing the interests of small business some advocates appear to have adopted an approach of appeasement and being ‘friends’ of the government of the day. It is a novel approach and one that, judging by the token treatment of small business by the Albanese government to date, is not working.
Small Business Minister Julie Collins is either not an important voice in cabinet; or is not arguing for small business as she focuses on traditional Labor issues around housing and homelessness, or doesn’t understand small business, or doesn’t care.
Small business people are important to jobs, OH&S, mental health, the economy, community, sport, charities, skills development, flexibility and family. Why is the government treating them as collateral damage in the workplace ideological war and as not very smart?
Peter Strong is the former chief executive of the Council of Small Business Organisations Australia.
Comments