Nick Champion (Wakefield, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to support this bill, the Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business Measures No. 1) Bill 2015, and support it wholeheartedly. I note the member for Forrest was talking rather wistfully about some of the businesses in her electorate and how they form the real heart of the community. I remember, when I was a young lad growing up in Kapunda, Reg Rawady owned the local deli, which had exactly that role. Rawadys Deli was a mixed business in Kapunda, and it was where people would come and chat. Of course, it was a good business as well.

Indeed, I see good businesses all over my electorate. When I am back at my electorate office, I often go across to Jack's coffee shop in Munno Para and have a talk with Mark. Mark is an ex-employee of Bridgestone, so he knows something about working in a big industrial environment; of course, it has been a big change for him to go into business for himself. He never lets me pay for coffee, unfortunately! He is certainly make a go of it there and he is always busy whenever I am there. Similarly, Dave and Lisa over at Forty Winks in the Munno Para shops, are a great local small business. They are great supporters of the Elizabeth footy club and of the local community. We know that there are so many people out there putting themselves on the line and creating good businesses that employ other people. Whenever I have had an issue with my car, I have always sent it along to Smithfield crash repair, to Larry and the boys, and they do a very good job.

There are lots of small businesses throughout my electorate, including farming businesses and businesses in small country towns and regional centres like Gawler, throughout Salisbury, Elizabeth and Munno Para. They all deserve our praise and admiration because, obviously, they put a lot of their own capital, as well as their own labour and their own ingenuity and effort into those businesses, and they employ so many people. They are really active and good corporate citizens in the local community, which I think is terribly important.

That is why it is so disappointing—when you have people out there doing the right thing and looking to Canberra, as they look to their state capitals as well, for a bit of support, a bit of consideration and a bit of acknowledgement—that, here in Canberra, political games are being played with their futures. In this government's first budget, we saw the demolition of Labor's small business package. Instead of bipartisan support, instead of bipartisan consideration, we saw the demolition of Labor's small business package, the one that we had when we were in government. That package was $5 billion worth of support for small business in terms of taxation considerations which we had put in place as part of our response to the global financial crisis and to the post-GFC economy. Part of our package was to try and spread some of the benefits of the resources boom that was going on at the time. But what did we get from those opposite? As the Leader of the Opposition said, we got a pavlovian response because Labor had promoted it, put in place and legislated for it. Whatever you might say about the last Labor government, legislatively the Rudd and Gillard governments were some of the most productive governments in this country's history. They really did push through a lot of legislation that was good for the country. Some of that was about small business and some of that was repealed by the current government.

So, what do we have in this 2015 budget? We know how much trouble the government and the Prime Minister were in, out there in the community. Having smashed consumer confidence, having smashed small business confidence and having smashed the Australian economy, knocked it for six, they then had to turn it all around and try to reinvigorate the Australian economy. What we see in this budget is, in some instances, the reintroduction of Labor's package and, in others, some support for small business, lowering tax rates and the like.

Since those measures were announced in the budget, we have had, on the one hand, the government demanding that we pass these bills and, on the other hand, the furious response from the opposition, saying, 'Yes, we'll pass them.' On budget night, the shadow Treasurer indicated our support for these bills, for these measures, and gave them bipartisan support—because we do not have that sort of pavlovian opposition response; we have a commitment to this country and to what makes this country great. We all know the figures for how much is invested and how many people are employed, and how important those investments and that employment are to our local economies. You do not have to spend much time in the community to know how important that contribution is. People rely on these businesses.

Before the bill was even in the House, we had the Prime Minister demanding that we pass it. On 1 June 2015, he said:

With the economy in transition, it is important that these budget measures to help small business get through the parliament as quickly as possible—

they are key words, 'as quickly as possible'—

as some small businesses are reluctant to invest until the measure has passed the parliament. I say to the Leader of the Opposition, let us not let politics get in the way of economics. Let us not let self-interest get in the way of national interest. Let us pass this bill straight away.

'Let us pass this bill straightaway.' But what happened this morning? Labor moved that the question that this bill be read a second time be put right away, this morning. It could have been passed. It could be on its way to the other place. And it would have had a speedy passage through the other place, too, due to the bipartisan support. We would have had none of the shenanigans with the crossbenches, none of the haggling or the horse-trading. We would have had bipartisan certainty for small business. And what did the government do? The government voted against putting the question. It voted against passing the bill! We had this bizarre spectacle where the Prime Minister demands that we pass a bill and then his party votes against that proposition. It is pretty strange!

Mr Deputy Speaker, you could have thought that maybe there was a bit of confusion there—maybe there were some crossed wires somewhere along the way. But look at what the Treasurer said in question time on 1 June:

So here is a challenge for the Labor Party. This legislation is going to go through the House of Representatives this week—absolutely right. Then it goes to the Senate, which has only two weeks to sit.

That indicates an urgency, doesn't it? I will continue the quote:

I lay down the challenge to the Labor Party: help us to get that legislation through the Senate as quickly as possible.

Well, the quickest way to get it through the other place would be to pass it through the House of Representatives promptly—not to have a long list of speakers, as we have on this bill. A long list of windbags from those opposite, who want to talk about this stuff rather than getting on and doing it—getting on and passing it.

And then we had the small business minister, who was lauded in the member for Forrest's speech. On 28 May he said:

The legislation is in this place. Let's get it through this place in a hurry and let's see if Labor is true to its word. It is not about the backswing; it is all about the follow-through. Let's follow through and get these measures enacted.

These are great sentiments. I see the minister at the table nodding enthusiastically. We all think that this place should be productive; we all think we should get on with it. And yet what did they do this morning? They voted against pushing this bill through the House of Representatives and into the Senate. They voted against bipartisanship. They voted against certainty. They voted against productivity in this place.

If you were out there working in a small business you would have to scratch your head. You would think, 'Well, why don't they just get on and do it? What's going on here?' Mr Deputy President, I will tell you what is going on here with the Prime Minister and his ministers: they operate from this song sheet—this bit of political strategy—'We are prepared to put our own political interests ahead of the national interest and, in this case, ahead of small business interests'. They could not care less about the national interest or small business interests where they conflict with their political interests.

And their political interests are Nixonian. They are all about division, all about partisanship and all about dividing the country, trying to squeeze out a small electoral majority. They could not give a damn: if it is 50 plus one then that is enough. They will even be satisfied with less than the popular vote so long as they can win those marginal seats. This is a quest for power at its most rank and most basic.

And we saw it this morning, this sort of Orwellian bravado from the government, from the Prime Minister, from his ministers and from the Treasurer. Orwellian bravado: pass the bill, pass the bill, pass the bill! We kept on demanding that they put it in the House. Pass the bill! And yet when it comes to this House, and when the opposition leader provided bipartisanship and offered to put the bill, what did we have? Not just opposition on the voices but a division—a division in this place about whether we should put the question, put the bill, pass it through the House on its way to the Senate and on its way to certainty and to being law. Instead, we are going to have to listen to a bunch of drones from the other side, droning away for half the day and half the night. They are all positive contributions, I am sure, if we had time for them!

This is a bunch of people standing around the front bar of the local pub in the country, talking about how they are going to fix the world but never actually getting to work. They never actually get out there on the farm. They are a lot of 'gunnas'. You have heard of that before, haven't you, Minister? 'Gunna'?

See this speech in context