Page 981 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 21 March 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
fully support. We acknowledge the thousands of businesses that continue to trade as family businesses or that have moved to a different structure but nonetheless started as family businesses.
There has been some talk during this debate about the size of a family business—when does a family business grow too large and when does a family business not deserve all the attention of other family businesses? They are very tricky questions, but I have got absolute admiration for companies that trade at an international level that started as family businesses. There is no critical threshold where it is immoral to suddenly be too big—absolutely not. We should be commending the people that have made those businesses what they are. It is all too easy to have a go at some of these people that have created tremendous wealth but in doing so have spread their wealth to thousands and thousands of staff, customers, related businesses and many other people. I take my hat off to them. I commend them and I thank them for the contribution they make to all societies, particularly Australian family businesses.
I think it is fair to say that the population of Canberra is fairly risk averse. All the indicators on our median levels of income and other quantitative indicators suggest that we are a wealthy society. Of course, this is not so for absolutely everybody. However, we must not forget that one of the drivers for high and medium incomes is the large numbers of people employed in the public service at incomes that are regarded, at least by the rest of the country, to be high. Such incomes, especially at the entry level, put tremendous cost pressures on family businesses that compete in this labour market for staff.
There are many times when a small or emerging family business cannot match salaries being offered in the public service, whether it is the ACT public service or the commonwealth one. Whilst this challenge facing many businesses is extremely difficult, it is family businesses and other small businesses that seek to attract and retain staff on grounds other than financial remuneration. For example, it is the flexibility and approachability of family businesses which allow for unique work arrangements where people with many things going on in their lives are able to negotiate conditions that suit both parties. Family businesses are in the real world, so they can give real-world solutions to real-world problems.
I, too, would like to echo the words of Mr Smyth and Mr Seselja in calling for the government to allow family businesses to do what they do best and to stay out of the way. When governments meddle in the free market, when they meddle in transactions, when they meddle in family businesses, things go wrong. Governments are not the sole repository of information and wisdom, and we must never be complacent by thinking that they are.
If I may return to what I said earlier about Canberrans being risk averse, I think that could be said for many in Australia and it is understandable why that might be. Australia is a great country and I believe that the majority of Australians enjoy a relatively high standard of living. Because of this, it is often hard for people to take the plunge of going into business and to make the sacrifices that such decisions entail. However, there are, of course, rewards which can be had as a result of taking on that risk.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video