Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL (11:30 AM) —As stated earlier by my colleague Senator Cook, Labor is committed to implementing the recommendations of the Reid report on fair trading entitled Finding a balance: towards fair trading . The Reid report was unanimously supported by both coalition and Labor members of parliament. The recommendations in the unfair trading report were also supported by the Council of Small Business Organisations in Australia, the Australian Small Business Association, the Queensland Retail Traders, the Pharmacy Guild of Australia, the Motor Traders Association of Australia and many more small business organisations.

However, what is clear is that the Howard government has undermined the intentions of the report in three key areas. The first is that the government has walked away from the Reid recommendations, refusing to adopt the concept of unfair conduct, instead relying on `unconscionable conduct'. The Reid report suggests the use of the word `unfair' instead of `unconscionable', because the definition is widely understood, particularly by people who are running small businesses. Labor believes that fairness is the social value central to the maintenance of social cohesion and the legitimacy of the social system. As indicated by Senator Cook, we will be moving to amend the bill to utilise the term `unfair'.

The second area in which the Howard government is not prepared to follow the Reid report is in respect of recommendations to institute a national uniform retail tenancy code. The Minister for Workplace Relations and Small Business (Mr Reith) has been making a great deal of noise about providing leadership in this area. However, during Senate estimates in November last year, when questioned about what action was being taken in respect of the establishment of a national uniform retail tenancy code for state and territory governments, Mr Grant stated:

Retail tenancies have been traditionally a state and territory responsibility and the Commonwealth does not have any direct responsibility in that area. We recognised that in deciding not to actually introduce a Commonwealth or a federal retail tenancy act. We recognise also that if we had done that it would have created a complexity because we would have had at least two tiers of legislation, hence more cost.

The reality is that the minister's rhetoric quite often does not match the minister's deeds. The reality is that, in respect of this area of retail tenancy codes, it is a burning issue for people in small business.

My in-laws, for example, until recently have been involved in the small business area and there is no subject that has occupied more time at the dinner table than this issue. They have consistently raised it and consistently have been concerned about the impact the retail tenancy code has upon small businesses and their capacity to operate.

This was a golden opportunity for the Howard government to in fact have provided real leadership in dealing with an issue of major concern amongst small businesses and to have provided substantial solutions in this area. The reality is the opposite: the government have walked away from the opportunity to do something of substance in this area and have not sought to implement a national uniform retail tenancy code. As indicated by my colleague Senator Cook, Labor will be moving to amend the bill in order to legislate for just such a code.

The third area in which the government has made the bill useless for the vast majority of small businesses is by limiting its application to transactions which are less than $1 million over five years. In our view, that is totally inadequate and restrictive, and will exclude an area of remedy for a very substantial number of small businesses. My experience as the National Secretary of the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union was that we consistently got complaints from small businesses which were dealing with or supplying to large businesses. In many instances they were put in a position where large business arbitrarily instituted cuts to contracts and to pricing arrangements with small businesses which those small businesses had to absorb and for which they had no capacity to seek redress through any area—and certainly would not, under these provisions, have the ability to seek redress under this act.

Senator Boswell —Yes, they would.

Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL —No, they would not because it says it has got to be less than a million dollars. A million dollar contract is nothing.

Senator Boswell —Come on!

Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL —Over five years? I could point to a range of companies, particularly in the auto component industry, which supply to the major producers in this country and which would not be able to seek redress under those provisions of this act. They have been forced, because of cost cutting within the industry, to cut back their prices. In one instance, they were forced to cut their prices by 20 per cent. The impact of that upon companies and their ability to maintain their profit levels, generate income for re-investment in the company, maintain the wage levels of their employees and, in fact, survive in business was very severely hampered by the decision of those companies to impose an arbitrary cut on prices.

Senator Boswell —They are not small businesses if they are doing contracts for five years.

Senator GEORGE CAMPBELL —Many of them are small businesses. Many of them are businesses that employ fewer than 10 employees. We think it is much more consistent to use the ABS definition of small business than to impose a transaction figure of a million dollars to define whether or not you get access to the provisions of the act. In our view, the way in which this provision is drafted will certainly exclude a very substantial part of the small business community from being able to seek redress in areas in which they should be entitled to it.

The reality is that this government has made a big play of its support for small business. We heard Senator Coonan outline some of them in her contribution earlier. She talked about this government's commitment to reducing paperwork and compliance provisions for small business. I have a number of friends in small business. For instance, I have a number of friends who run dental practices and, as I indicated earlier, my parents-in-law have run small businesses. None of them have seen any discernible reduction in paperwork or compliance provisions, despite the rhetoric of the government in this area.

I recall asking Mr Grant at the Senate estimates whether or not this was capable of being measured. I think he rightly said it was not possible to measure whether or not or to what degree the impact of paperwork and compliance had been reduced for small business. I would suggest it is incapable of being measured because out in the business community the reality is that the impact has been negligible. It certainly has not been noticeable to the people out there running those small businesses.

The government has made a big play of its commitment to small business. I suggest that, when you examine the reality of what the government is doing, including what it is doing in this bill—in particular the way in which it has treated these three key issues on which Labor will be seeking to move amendments—you have to say that the reality is that its commitment to improving the situation overall for small business is not matched by what it is implementing in practice. There is a lot of rhetoric, but the reality is something else.

However, as I said at the start of my comments, Labor has not and will not delay the passage of this bill, but we will move our amendments, as is a normal and democratic procedure in the parliament, to try to strengthen support for small business in the legislation. However, what we want is real legislative protection for small business, not the mickey mouse alternative the minister is proposing, which walks away from the coalition's own report on fair trading and from the opportunity to do something of real substance to help small businesses in our community.