PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

Mr PASIN (Barker) (18:29): I come from a family of small businesses. In fact, I'm proud to stand here and say my parents have employed people who worked for my parents their entire working life. Those people are now retired.

I think I can speak with some confidence about what small business does and how it operates. The one fallacy I would love to break down in this place that some who make contributions opposite seem to want to subscribe to—the member for Moore was very much of this mantra. I acknowledge the member for Sturt was not—that there is this clash between bosses or business owners and employees.

I don't think a greater fallacy was ever spoken in this place. Employers will do everything they can to hold on to good employees. That is certainly my experience in business.

But, of course, we're here talking about non-compete clauses. I'm grateful for the member for Sturt because she was academically honest about the law as it relates to these clauses that are included in employment contracts in Australia. They are deemed illegitimate by the courts, save and except for where an employer can establish they are reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interest, so it's not, as some might suggest in this place, that every hairdresser, every plumber or every electrician has these provisions in their contract, because, quite frankly, if they do, unless an employer can establish that they're 'reasonably necessary to protect a legitimate business interests', then they're illegal.

I want to make it very clear the coalition will assess this legislation when it has an opportunity to consider it, but that's the starting point. The starting point is what the law says today. Why might a business have a legitimate reason to protect itself in a non-compete clause?

Let me give you an example that comes from regional South Australia. A land and stock agent might want to work for a stock agency. That person might be introduced to clients of the agency.

That person will develop a rapport with those staff. It is fair and reasonable for the business that has curated that relationship over a decade or more to have the protection that, should an employee wish to move to another agency, they are not then in a position to take those employees with them, so they want that protection. Let me give you another example.

What about a technical trade where a business has access to particular processes or procedures? Obviously, there would be a reasonable and necessary protection to protect their legitimate business interests. A situation where we're simply going to make this effectively illegal for anyone earning under $190,000 would take away the protections that small businesses may otherwise legitimately have and ones that they can establish before a court.

That might be the reason why COSBOA has raised concerns about the fact that the draft exposure bill goes a lot further than the original announcement. It might also be why other peaks have expressed their concern as well. To be honest, I'm not going to sit here and take a lecture from those opposite about what small business needs in the shadow of the credit card surcharges ban fiasco.

Like members before me, can I reiterate we will take the opportunity to consider this proposal in detail. We'll do it with the benefit of the hundreds of years of experience in small business that we enjoy within the coalition, and we'll do it against the background of a deep understanding of what the law says today and what is required. This idea that we're setting up bosses against workers is a straw man, and I wish those opposite would stop it, because, quite frankly, small business will do everything it can to work with and maintain relationships with good employees.