Tony Smith (Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The question now is that the amendment be agreed to.

Andrew Wallace (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Many members have already spoken in support of elements of this excellent bill, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016. I want to focus on the impact that the enterprise tax plan will have on Australia's small businesses. I have spent most of my adult life operating my own small businesses. As we all know, the work of a parliamentarian involves long hours and a lot of difficult work, but this is nothing compared to the life of a small-business owner. I remember the nights spent staring at columns of numbers after a full day on site, trying to square my accounts and doing my book work. I remember the constant stress of being so close to the edge in business, where a few hundred dollars here or there often makes a difference between success and failure. It is not a comfortable life, nor is it an easy one, but it is a choice made by thousands of Australians and a choice that this country relies upon.

Small businesses employ 44.8 per cent of working Australians—more than any other type of business. This percentage has been growing every year since 2012. Some 4.8 million people already work in a small business. At a time of challenging economic circumstances for Australia, this already crucial contribution to employment is only going to become more important. Though less talked about, small businesses also contribute nearly 36 per cent of all the industry value-added in Australia—more than $379 billion and growing. The fact is small businesses have been practising innovation and agility since Adam played fullback for Jerusalem. That is how they survive.

Small businesses are the future of Australia and we must now act to support them. Unfortunately, it is tough for many small businesses and in far too many cases they do not survive. In 2014-15, 280,000 new small businesses started up in Australia—280,000 new ideas and fresh visions from bold proprietors willing to take a risk, 280,000 opportunities for growth and new employment for Australians. But, unfortunately, in the same year there were more than 258,000 small businesses that cancelled their registrations or stopped remitting GST. If this country is to go forward, we must do more to help these fledgling employers to grow.

Just last week I had the opportunity to visit the university in my electorate, the University of the Sunshine Coast, where I inspected the university's Innovation Centre, which is a start-up hub. It is a group of great individuals who are looking to start up their own small businesses. It is in this Innovation Centre at the University of the Sunshine Coast that many small businesses have been floated, with some fantastic ideas. I fully support the university in its attempts to help people start up these businesses. It is a great thing for the Sunshine Coast.

But taxes and business rates are a significantly bigger problem for small businesses than they are for larger ones. With comparatively few staff, even fulfilling their taxation reporting obligations can represent a considerable opportunity cost. Studies have suggested that as many as a third of small-business owners do their tax reporting on weekends. When your turnover is modest and every dollar is precious, handing over 28½ per cent of your profit to the taxman does not leave you a great deal to invest in your company. The numbers may be small, but the difference they make is immense.

Under the bill before us today, around 870,000 incorporated small businesses will benefit from an immediate tax cut of 2.5 per cent, rising to five per cent over 10 years. These businesses alone employ more than 3.4 million workers. An additional 2.3 million unincorporated businesses will benefit from a similar decrease to their tax rate. In many cases, for a business in the top half of the eligibility threshold these tax cuts alone will be enough to allow them to take on another full-time member of staff. For others it will provide the capital to invest in new equipment or cost-saving technology to double down on those gains for the future.

It is not, however, only extra investment which will result from this measure. For some companies it is a question of long-term survival. Competition in many sectors is fierce—more fierce than ever, perhaps. Globalisation has brought low-cost products from overseas countries, many of which enjoy considerably lower tax rates than ours. It is already tough for many of our mum-and-dad business owners to compete with these newcomers. For some, a reduction in their tax bill will give them a chance to lower their prices and compete without compromising their family income.

The benefit can go beyond the purely financial. Many business owners would love to invest more in the development of their staff, but we know from ABS statistics that small businesses are half as likely as large companies to provide structured training. They often simply do not have the resources to make investments of that kind. Similarly, others want to lessen their environmental impacts, provide more time for staff volunteering or take part in community initiatives. Being allowed to keep more of their earnings would give many the chance to follow through on these good intentions.

All too often debate over measures like this revolves around statistics and economic modelling. I would like to take a few minutes to tell the House about some of the real impacts that this bill will have on the extraordinary Australians who are building successful businesses in my community. I spoke to Kel McNamara recently at the Glasshouse Mountains RSL AGM. He owns a fantastic business in Glass House Mountains called KLM Energy Services, which he has been operating since 1999. KLM supplies LP gas to homes and businesses within our community.

As Kel says himself, the company is and has always been a family business. Starting with only himself, first Kel's son and later his wife came to help him. Though growing all the time, and employing eight local people today, by any reasonable standard KLM remains a small business. Kel is keen to make clear how important this bill's change to the threshold for what constitutes a 'small business' is. The $2 million definition has been in place for many years no longer reflects the situation on the ground of what it means to be a real small business. If this bill passes and the tax rate paid by his company is lowered, Kel, like many other business owners, intends to use the money to pay for solar panels and batteries to reduce the costs of his business. With lower costs, Kel might be able to strengthen his employment position and even, perhaps, look again at the remuneration he is able to offer his staff.

Husband and wife team, Ian and Pat Humphries, run Humphries and Fisk in the beautiful town of Maleny. They are well-known local names, sharing expert knowledge of that area with people looking to buy or sell property. Pat wants to spend all of her time providing the value-added consultation that she is uniquely able to deliver to her clients. She also wants to be able to offer more opportunities to her part-time support staff to learn about other parts of the business and to develop their careers. A company tax cut for her business would give her the chance to offer more hours to her support staff, give them more space to grow, and give herself more time to value-add for her clients.

In Little Mountain there is another innovative enterprise called Australian Off Road, founded by Steve and Rhonda Budden. It is a 100 per cent locally owned and operated business. Steve knew all about the rough terrain that Australia can throw at camper trailers when they go off the beaten track, and he knew that there was a market for building a much better off-road camper trailer. So, what did Steve do? He set to work in his carport building a better camper trailer. Sixteen years later Steve and Rhonda Budden's business is a sensational Sunshine Coast success story. But Australian Off Road faces tough competition from cheap and cheap-quality products coming into Australia from overseas. Australia's high rate of company tax is a serious burden on Steve and Rhonda Budden's business. Firms in other countries can use more of their profit to invest in their business and can offer lower prices without risking that investment. Labouring under the 30 per cent tax rate, it is harder for Australian Off Road to compete against those offshore companies.

Finally, I want to tell the House about Geoff Lyons Solicitors in Caloundra. His firm is one of the Sunshine Coast's longest standing practices, and Geoff has practiced for almost four decades. He helps a great many people to pass on their estates to the next generation. Geoff employs eight people and recently was able to take on a new member of staff. But, for Geoff, his practice is a vocation. After four decades he knows that his clients want to feel secure in their planning for their family's future. He would love to respond to their needs by taking on another new solicitor. That way, he could offer the reassurance of a more comprehensive, all-round service to his clients in-house. A reduction in the company tax rate that his firm pays could give him the extra resources that he needs to make that happen.

Of course, these examples illustrate only a small selection of the thousands of small businesses in Fisher which would be able to prosper and invest as a result of this bill and only a small part of the benefits that would flow to my community. We know in our area what great things can come from small businesses when they have vision and the right regulatory environment. Demographer Bernard Salt recently called the Sunshine Coast the entrepreneur capital of Australia. How right he was!

As I reported to the House last year, the example of another local icon, Maleny Dairies, shines out—not only in its success in providing employment, but in the benefits that flow from it to others in our community. Maleny Dairies began as a single family farm in our region. Today, operated by Ross and Sally Hopper, the company employs 50 locals and pays farmers in our district higher rates per litre than other companies, allowing them to keep their cattle healthy, their own farms viable and to stay on the land.

As Kel, Pat, Rhonda, Geoff and the Hoppers prove, a successful small business is much more than a generator of wealth. Often close-knit, collaborative and intimately tied to their local community, small businesses have an in-this-together attitude that breeds purpose—it breeds a social conscience. If successful, these enterprises can become a hub for locals, providing economic and social benefits across decades. As we have seen, these benefits include not only new employment opportunities, but improved services, lower prices, training and development schemes and even reduced environmental impacts.

This enterprise tax plan could not have been more central to the mandate given to our government by the people last year. The Prime Minister, the Treasurer and colleagues on this side of the House knew how important it was to Australia's future. That is why, in literally hundreds of speeches, interviews, listening posts and community forums, coalition members and candidates talked about our plans for the future for a strong and vibrant Australia.

Adam Bandt (Melbourne, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There comes a point where being crazy brave just becomes being plain crazy, and that is what we are seeing from the government with the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016. Only the Liberals would come to this parliament and say: we want a small business to be defined as a business that earns up to $1 billion a year. That is what this bill is asking us to do. Only the Liberals would come to this parliament and say—at the very same time that they are asking single parents to take a hit to their pockets and have their benefits cut—that we need to be giving a tax handout to some of the biggest companies in this country.

Members of the government would have you believe that this bill is only about the genuine small businesses—the small firms, the takeaway shops, the solicitors firms—that are working hard and may well deserve some assistance. But what they do not tell you, when they come up and put this bill in front of you, is that the government has a plan to give a tax cut to some of the biggest companies in this country. It is going to hit the budget to the tune of $50 billion.

That money is going to have to be found somewhere, and what we know from yesterday's moves from the government in the Senate is that it is going to come out of the pockets of some of the people who are doing it toughest in this country. It is going to come out of the pockets of single parents, who are going to lose out because of family tax benefit cuts. It is going to come out of the pockets of people who find themselves between jobs and are looking for a helping hand, but who are, instead, going to have to wait longer before they are able to access welfare payments—and it comes at a time when we know that there are many, many large companies operating in Australia that pay no tax at all. They pay no tax at all!

Faced with a choice, should we be asking Glencore Investments—which, according to The New Daily and the ABS, had a total income of $7.7 billion in the 2014-15 financial year but paid zero in tax—to pay a bit more to the public purse, so that single parents do not have to get cut and so that we do not have to pay more to go and see the doctor, instead of holding back funding from schools when they need it? No. The government does not say: we are going to go and ask some of those very big companies to contribute a bit more to the public purse, to at least pay something in tax. Are we going to go back to Origin Energy, which had an income of $12 billion in the 2014-15 financial year and paid zero tax, and say, 'Could you please pay a bit to the public purse so that we do not have to take the axe to the young, the old, the sick and the poor to balance the budget?' No. It is not interested in doing that.

Instead—in the very same week that it attacks single parents and families—it comes in in here and says: we want to progress our plan to give a $50 billion handout to Australia's biggest companies, and we will do it by waving the fig leaf of a small business tax cut. What it does not tell you is that its definition of 'small business' slowly ramps up, year after year after year, to the point where it covers every company in the country. I do not think that the Big Four banks in Australia count as small businesses. I do not understand why the government wants the Big Four banks to benefit to the tune of over $7 billion, which will come at the expense of Australian taxpayers, because that is not going to create one single extra job. All it is going to do is say to the Big Four banks, who are already making world-leading, record profits: you now have an extra $7 billion—'billion' with a 'b'—courtesy of the government, and that is going to hit the public purse.

We hear every day from this government that there are pressures on the budget. It says that it is running out of money that we need to fund the services that Australians rightly expect, like good quality health care, like being able to send your kids to a good school without having to dip your hand into your pocket, because you know the public education system is well funded. It comes in here and says: there are pressures on the budget, and we need to fix it because we need to make sure that our kids and our grandkids are not left with a debt. Well, a good place to start would be not giving $50 billion to some of the biggest companies in Australia and not giving over $7 billion to the Big Four banks.

The government has this trickle-down argument that we have heard mounted by the likes of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has been promoted for many, many years, but it has been discredited. All it does is join in an international race to the bottom on tax rates. If we say, 'We had better cut our company tax rates because Donald Trump is doing the same' then pretty soon there is going to be no money left in the public purse for anyone—and that, can I say, is probably this government's secret aim.

It will not tell you this, but this government's aim is actually to implement the strategy the hard Right calls 'starving the beast': implement tax cuts when you get into power, give billions of dollars back to some of the biggest companies in Australia and the biggest companies in the world, and then come and wring your hands and say, 'I am sorry, there is just not enough money left for public schools, public hospitals, renewable energy or infrastructure, so we are going to have to cut those.' The people in this country do not want that.

These tax cuts are unpopular, and there is a reason for that. People in Australia want Australia to be a good place to do business, but they also know that paying a fair share of tax is the price for coming and operating in a very prosperous country—a prosperous, stable, peaceful country like Australia, with we hope has and will continue to have high standards of living for people. Well, it depends. We cannot do all of that unless we ask those who are running business here to pay a fair share of tax. I have to say, people are getting sick of being asked to put their hand in their own pockets more and more to go and see the doctor, to pay so-called voluntary fees when they are sending their kids off to school, or to pay more out of their own pockets when it comes to tax, at the same time as watching these big companies get away with murder. And then, to add insult to injury, the government comes in here and says: we want those companies to pay even less tax.

If the government were serious about looking after small business, we would not have one bill that tries to redefine a big business as a small business. We would have a separate measure for small businesses—for genuinely small businesses who might need some assistance. But the government is not serious about that. The government wants to give a big handout to their big-business mates. This parliament should be about standing up for the public interest, and that means standing up to big corporations. I have had enough of this place simply being a plaything of the biggest corporations in this country. What happens in parliament is that the big corporations send their lobbyists and they say, 'We want this,' or 'We want that,' and the government says, 'Well, we'll happily write you a blank cheque; when would you like it by?'

It should be the job of this place to stand up to those powerful interests when they come. It should be the job of this place to say that we probably have something wrong in this country when Japan makes more tax on Australian natural gas than Australia makes, according to some reports. What an absurd situation. We probably have something wrong in this country when companies can make between $7 billion and $12 billion a year in turnover and not have to pay any tax at all. Something is deeply wrong when this government says, 'None of that is a problem; in fact, let's ask companies to pay less tax.'

Everyone wants Australia to have a strong and prosperous economy, but we know that, in order to have the services that we rightly expect in a wealthy country, we need to ask people to pay some tax. We are at a turning point in this country. We have just seen a once-in-a-generation mining investment boom come and go, and people are looking around the country and saying: 'What have we got to show for it? Did we capture some of the money from the minerals that all Australians own and we only get to dig up once and then sell off? Did we capture some of that money and put it into infrastructure? Did we do what some other countries have done and take some of that money through a proper tax system and put it into a sovereign wealth fund so that we can build industries when the mining boom is over? Did we take some of that money and grow the industries of the future in science, research, innovation and education, so that we have something to sustain us when the mining boom is over? No.

What are we left with? We are left with plummeting house prices and high unemployment in some parts of the country. We are left with next to nothing to show for it. We have had a bunch of people come in from overseas, work on those projects and then leave, so we have lost the skills that could have come from working on those projects and the capacity to skill up local workers. We have done it all because governments have been so deferential to big companies that they have forgotten to act in the public interest. This bill is yet another example of that.

If you want to know why the Liberals got a thumping in the Western Australian election and if you want to know why, all of a sudden, hard-right forces like One Nation start to do well around the country, you need look no further than this bill and the fact that many people are being left behind in this country because governments have not had the guts to stand up to big companies that operate in Australia and say, 'If you are going to operate here, then you need to pay your fair share of tax so that we can build this country for the future.' They do not seem to be learning the lesson. They seem to be doing the same thing over and over again and, in fact, saying: 'How can we do it more? How can we ask you to pay even less tax when you come to this country?'

It is absolutely no wonder that there is an increasing disrespect for politicians, because if all that politicians do is write blank cheques for some of the biggest companies in this country then we are selling out the Australian people. We are at a tipping point. This might be the parliament and the government that leaves standards of living for our kids and those who come after us worse than the ones that we inherited.

The government talks a lot about making sure we fix the debt burden for children and grandchildren. Perhaps one way to do that, if that is seriously what you are interested in, is to not give $7 billion of public money back to the big banks. You tell me, government, how giving the big four banks $7 billion creates one additional job. The big four banks are not about to go overseas because of lower tax rates. They are operating in Australia and taking Australian deposits and banking here. Given that, why do they need a handout? What is that going to do for the economy? Even if you accept this ridiculous trickle-down argument that tax cuts stimulate jobs and growth, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary anywhere, give me one single example of how giving the big four banks an extra $7 billion is going to create one extra job. Everyone knows that they are not going to put that into extra jobs. It is going to go straight into profits. That is why this government's plan for giving tax cuts to those who do not need them is ridiculous. It is not only ridiculous; it is positively harmful.

If the government continues down this road, we will not have the money to fund the services that Australians rightly expect. A free bit of political advice: as a result, you are going to see yourself, government, kicked again and again at election time by the people of Australia, who know, in their hearts, that corporations are getting away with murder. Every day, they see parliament giving in and they want parliament to stand up.

The Greens will stand up for the public interest over the big business interest, and sometimes that might mean we have to cop the mining industry running some ads against us or the pokies industry coming to town and threatening a campaign in our seats. Well, so be it. Because if parliament does not stand up for the public against big corporates and their massive power, then no-one will. So I hope the government has heeded the lessons it has been given and ditches its plan to give big tax cuts to those who do not need them.

Chris Crewther (Dunkley, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As an electorate of over 16,000 small businesses, Dunkley is centrestage to this legislation. We have the highest economic growth of any Victorian federal electorate. One could almost say that Dunkley is a natural home for business and innovation. I am a proud member of the Frankston Business Network and I proudly display my membership in my office. The network is a non-political, voluntary, not-for-profit organisation, representing all businesses operating within the greater Frankston region.

Frankston City Council and Mornington Peninsular Shire council have an abundance of resources for local businesses and start-ups including grants, support and business development programs. You would be hard pressed to find a better place to begin a small business than Dunkley. Obviously, of course, the Minister for Social Services' electorate of Pearce would not be far behind. That is why this legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (Enterprise Tax Plan) Bill 2016 has my full support. Starting with businesses with an aggregated turnover of less than $10 million, the Turnbull coalition government is supporting industry in Dunkley and across Australia by reducing the corporate tax rate to 27.5 per cent and then down to 25 per cent within 10 years. By providing this initially to small businesses then progressively lowering the tax rate for all businesses, we will boost Australian jobs and Australian wages and we will boost our businesses' competitiveness both in the Australian market and internationally. Small business employs approximately a quarter of Australia's working population yet only one in 10 small business ventures succeed. That is why we must help them first.

This legislation is an example of the long-term visionary planning that Australia needs. The 10-year plan will invite investment and demonstrate continued confidence in Australian industry. Paying less tax frees up more money to pay employees and to give them more hours of work. These tax reforms will provide a boost to 1.8 million people seeking additional work. On the Mornington Peninsular we had a rolling average unemployment rate, as of September last year, of 5.1 per cent and a youth unemployment rate of 10.1 per cent. Many would gladly work if businesses could afford to hire them. This does not of course include underemployment, which is even higher.

Australia is not unfamiliar with fiscal competitiveness. Lower tariffs result in lower costs and greater production. Currently only five of the 35 OECD nations have a corporate tax rate higher than ours. Compare this to 15 years ago when Australia had the ninth lowest corporate tax rate among advanced economies. The United States' administration now has plans to reduce their corporate tax rate to 15 per cent. We have an uncompetitive business tax rate and our businesses are being stifled. The Turnbull coalition government will fix this, and will bring commerce and small business policy back to the heart of governing for Australia.

We are in a period of transition. With the end of the mining boom, we absolutely must support our other industries and give our local businesses a hand up. Excessive taxation cripples business, and we on this side of the House are determined to lessen the burden. By reducing the corporate tax rate for businesses with a turnover of less than $10 million on 1 July this year, we will be delivering a lower tax rate for around 870,000 companies which employ over 3.4 million workers. That means more income, more jobs and more employment for the community in Dunkley and across Australia. We will in turn bring greater investment into Australia and make sure that Australia continues to be an attractive place to do business. While prioritising small business, we will ensure that all businesses receive the benefits of a lower corporate tax rate over time. When there is less tax to pay, the profit margins are greater. When there is more money and more room to move, there is the opportunity for expansion, acquiring more staff, higher wages and a higher standard of living. You would have to be a fool not to jump at the chance to improve the security of our industries and have an expected permanent increase in the size of our economy of just over one per cent in the long term.

Dunkley, my electorate, has above the average number of small businesses so my focus is naturally primarily on the small business aspect of this legislation. During the 2013-14 financial year, small business added approximately $340 billion to the Australian economy. According to 2015 figures, approximately 97.7 per cent of businesses in Dunkley employ fewer than 20 people and approximately 99.5 per cent of businesses in Dunkley had a turnover of less than $10 million. We even have start-up hubs like the Frankston Foundry, which I visited last week, where people can set up and host their businesses from under the foundry's roof.

Small business is the keystone and the driver of our economy, particularly in my electorate, which is the federal electorate with the highest economic growth in Victoria, as I have noted. We as a government therefore have a duty to reduce the tax burden and free up investment as well as provide growth opportunities for our local communities. Frankston City Council figures note that the gross revenue generated in my local economy per job created is $254,914. If we can free up businesses to potentially create additional employment opportunities by reducing the amount of tax that business needs to feed back into government, just think of the potential growth of our local employment figures, our economy, our investment opportunities and our standard of living. This in turn will have a long-term positive impact on government revenue by increasing the overall pie.

From 1 July this year, all businesses with an annual turnover of less than $10 million will: be subject to simpler depreciation and trading stock rules, be able to use simpler clearer methods of paying pay-as-you-go tax instalments to the ATO, have flexibility in how GST is paid, have access to tax concessions previously only available to a small segment of businesses, and have reduced GST compliance costs through trials of simpler business activity statements. We are also introducing changes to benefit crowdfunding. This is how we, in the Turnbull coalition government, are the government for small business. By putting small business first, we will provide a boost to our economy and to national revenue. The prospect of the reverse or even just the rejection of these changes would be extremely harmful for small businesses right around the country.

Both the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer have previously advocated for reductions in company tax, and I call on them to show that it was not just talk but to translate this into real action and support of this legislation. For example, the Leader of the Opposition said:

Cutting the company income tax rate increases domestic productivity and domestic investment. More capital means higher productivity and economic growth and leads to more jobs and higher wages.

The Leader of the Opposition should take a leaf out of his predecessor Paul Keating's book, who twice reduced the corporate tax rate for all businesses—that is, all businesses at once, not a graduated approach favouring small businesses first as we are doing.

This week we had The Big Small Business Expo in Dunkley in Frankston. It was hosted by yet another business hub, The Garden, and its founders, Emily and Jo. This is a hugely positive event with attendees offered marketing tips, exposure and networking opportunities, as well as opportunities for innovators and entrepreneurs to be connected to business people, along with mentors. I challenge any members opposing this legislation to come to Frankston and look at my constituents in the eye and tell them why they refuse to support tax relief for small business.

There are small-business owners like Cecile, who has run the Vogue House Cafe for over 15 years—first in Mount Eliza and now in Frankston. Cecile is the sole permanent staff member at the cafe. These tax cuts for businesses could potentially allow Cecile to hire other staff and have support in running the cafe. I challenge those members opposite to explain to Cecile why they refuse to give her a break. There is also George, owner and manager of Digital Reprographics, a local printing business that has been around for almost 20 years. George and his hardworking staff can professionally print and deliver several thousand flyers with half a day's warning, and they have plenty of capability for expansion. George invests in the local Frankston and the wider Dunkley community and is a small-business operator and a strong supporter of business networking and mentoring opportunities for newcomers to the business sector. In opposing this legislation, those opposite do not believe George deserves any help and will not allow him to expand or develop his business.

That is what opposition to this legislation comes down to. It is opposition to investment, opposition to more jobs, opposition to job security and opposition to wage growth. The opposition are exactly that: opposition to opportunities for hardworking individuals and to opportunities for their economic competitiveness. By demanding that small- and medium-sized businesses pay nearly $5 billion extra in tax, those members opposite have Australian business in a stranglehold that is economically irresponsible and pure opportunism.

It is a fact that higher corporate taxes hurt workers. The economic burden of corporate taxes are ultimately passed on to employees in the form of lower wages, fewer hours and less job security. The Tax Foundation in the United States found a consistent occurrence of reverse correlation between tax rates and wages—that is, when there is an increase in tax, ultimately a fall in wages follows. When a tax cut is implemented, there is a proportional increase in wages for ordinary employees. Add to this the increased investment in a growing company that is exploring and working its way into overseas markets, and a person such as Perry, of Nutech Paint in Seaford, finds themselves with additional opportunities for growth and investment, hiring additional staff and producing more, selling more and exporting more. And so the cycle continues.

We are the government for small business, including businesses like Nutech Paint. We have a positive record on fiscal policy, and this legislation goes some of the way towards the taxation reforms I indicated during my maiden speech, which are ideals of classical liberalism and central to Liberal Party ideology. I would be inclined to think the shadow Treasurer's amendment perhaps reflects his concerns about his own party's policy, characterised by wasteful spending, fiscal irresponsibility and a complete apathy to our industries and our international competitiveness.

It is no wonder that the opposition are trying to block this legislation. They need the extra tax income to fund their unfunded promises, yet they concurrently continue to try to block our savings measures. This is a confused opposition. Who knows what they want? I am sure that every one of us knows people, including me, who have attempted to start up small businesses. They may be successful or not. It is quite common for people to mortgage their own houses, their own homes, and to put everything on the line for their business, including the lifestyles of their families. We have all heard of or met small-business owners who take home no pay because they need to put that money into taxes or wages, just to keep afloat.

These include people like Andriy, a successful migrant story and the owner of Blue Bay Cheese in Mornington; Mark and Dianne of The Bramble Farm in Langwarrin; Sally of The Cake Cottage in Frankston; and Armadeo of Globeline Automotive in Seaford. These are the very people that this legislation would help. There is never a point when these people stop working or stop worrying about the impact of governments' economic policies. Let us give them one fewer thing to worry about and give them the security and predictability of easing tax rates over the next decade.

These are the reasons I am strongly supportive of this legislation. Secure economic modelling outlines the positive trajectory of wages and investment with a reduced corporate tax rate—lowering the tax rate for businesses with an annual turnover of less than $10 million by 2.5 per cent by 1 July 2017, extending the reduced rate of 27.5 per cent to all corporate tax entities by the 2023-24 financial year and then progressively reducing that rate to 25 per cent for all businesses by 2026-27. This is not a tax cut for big business. This is a tax cut for all business. In doing so, we will improve job security, wages and investment in our industries, both in Dunkley and across Australia. This is a positive plan for more jobs and economic growth that is backed by evidence and is completely funded. I call on members opposite to support this legislation and to give our local businesses the help that so many need and deserve, and to make Australia competitive again.

Debate adjourned.