PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr WILLCOX (Dawson) (18:09): Over the last two weeks, I've been back in Dawson and my diary has been full, travelling from Townsville to Mackay and everywhere in between. I've been meeting small-business owners, coffee-shop owners, travel agents, manufacturers and tourism operators—different businesses but with the same message: they are at breaking point. They're asking themselves how much more pressure they can absorb before something finally gives.
I've heard the strain in these business owners' voices. They're asking this Labor government to stop making their lives harder. Small businesses create jobs, train workers and keep communities across Dawson alive.
Workers deserve opportunity. Employers deserve fairness. This motion fails to give proper weight to either, and that is why I oppose it.
Small businesses are the people sponsoring junior sport, supporting local charities and giving young Australians their first jobs. They're working long hours, employing locals and doing everything possible just to keep their doors open. But rising mortgages, higher power bills, increasing insurance, higher rent and more compliance costs are eating away at their margin.
The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry recently found that 63 per cent of small businesses identified rising costs as their biggest challenge, and the Reserve Bank has warned that businesses in hospitality and the retail sector face even greater cash-flow pressure. These are the businesses the government should be listening to. Instead, Labor is celebrating another change that will leave them with less protection.
When a small business recruits someone, it makes an investment. There are advertising costs, interviews, training, supervision and months spent teaching the skills needed for their individual businesses. A Mackay manufacturer might train an employee on specialised processes and then trust them with pricing, customers and commercially sensitive information.
A travel agency might spend years building client relationships and then share those contacts with a new recruit. Those employees should be able to move forward in their careers, but surely the businesses deserve reasonable protection against the misuse of the intellectual property that they own. Non-compete clauses serve that purpose where they are limited and justified.
Existing law already requires restraints to be reasonable and to be enforceable. Labor's proposed ban would apply to workers earning below the high-income threshold—currently $190,100. That's around nine in 10 Australian workers.
The government talks about possible wage gains of up to $2½ thousand a year, but that's an estimate, not a guaranteed pay rise. And it doesn't answer the question I hear from employers: who pays when a trained worker leaves and that business must start again? Labor says confidently that non-solicitation provisions can still protect businesses.
But the small-business ombudsman has called for clearer guidelines so legitimate protections aren't swept aside. A family business shouldn't need an expensive lawyer just to understand their rights. These owners of small businesses have had enough uncertainty.
Just last week, after a backlash from small businesses, the Albanese Labor government was forced into yet another embarrassing backflip, delaying the ATO's plan to stop accepting credit card payments for tax bills. Labor only delayed the ban until June 2026—delayed, not cancelled. Frankly, the number of backflips since the budget has been nauseating: announce a change, ignore the warnings, face the backlash and then scramble in retreat.
Why not listen first? Why not consult with small business? That would save small businesses time, money and more anxiety.
I want workers to thrive, but I want employers competing to offer good wages and good conditions. But a coffee shop, a tourism operator or an engineering firm isn't a giant corporation with a legal department. One bad hire, one lost client or one unexpected compliance bill can have serious consequences.