Tim Wilson (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business) Share this | Hansard source

We all know the experience these days—going into a shop, whatever it is, and buying coffee—you're looking very healthy these days, Deputy Speaker Georganas, perhaps you're not buying the muffin! Nonetheless, you're going in with your phone, credit card, debit card, whatever it is and hearing the sound—beep!—and knowing the transaction has just gone through. That is the modern payment system that so many of us engage with on a day-to-day basis, as most of us barely even carry cash anymore. Cash, as much as it is an important part of our economic security and the liquidity of our system, isn't actually how most of us engage. Most of us use digital transactions for the little things because it's become part of our day-to-day routine. As a consequence of the COVID pandemic a few years ago and as a result of the integration of EFTPOS many years ago and the expansion of credit cards and other forms of payment systems, it's very much now fully integrated into our lives.

Of course, the laws were designed at a time when payment systems were relatively straightforward. We all welcome this updated legislation to address the modernisation of our payment systems. It reflects a technical capacity to reflect how we use the payment systems today and to give government appropriate legislative coverage, particularly with the emergence of multinational payment systems with things like Apple Pay, Google Pay and Afterpay and for crypto and block chain systems as well. No-one is disputing that there's a need for it to be done in a way that is consistent with Australian law and Australian regulation by the appropriate oversight powers to the Reserve Bank of Australia and to be done with the need to make sure that it's done so that it integrates successfully with Australia's payment system so that we can build out a stable financial environment with confidence.

That doesn't mean the government has got everything right in this legislation. We know that the government is, in one sense, overreaching and, in another sense, not doing enough. It's overreaching because it's seeking to extend the RBA's powers into areas that perhaps go well beyond what it should be covering—going beyond components of payment systems and looking at certain types of fintech and even certain types of block chain technologies and digital wallets—where it doesn't necessarily have the appropriate skills or capacity to do so and could limit the capacity for financial innovation.

That has actually been one of the great growth areas of Australian innovation in recent years. Financial technology has put Australian small businesses at the fore, has put us in a position to grow and be successful and has often gone on to be sold internationally if not just domestically. We don't want to stifle that innovation and have regulators come down with the heavy hand of government and limit their potential for growth. We want to back them, we want to encourage them, and we want the operating environment to be open so that, where innovation can occur, it is an Australian first wherever possible. Of course, they need to be steered and guided, but that is to make sure that the system is as open as possible rather than it being too burdensome with regulation.

In addition to that, it's extended the powers of the Treasurer in a way that is increasingly by a form of regulation. There's always a balance between how much you give powers to the Treasurer by regulation—or any minister, I might add because I know there are a couple of them sitting at the table—versus how much you give power to the Treasurer through forms of legislation which force things to come back to this chamber, to the assent of the representatives elected by the people of this Commonwealth. Of course, by and large, we should always seek to do things through this parliamentary process—it adds proper scrutiny, accountability and deliberation—and also because we want to get to a position where, when a rule is imposed, it's uniform and goes through proper processes so that there's a broader degree of acceptance and understanding about the consequences of it, because, once the law is imposed, the consequences are often hard to undo. This government has become completely addicted to its powers by regulation to bypass this parliament. Only in the motion prior to this debate we talked about the government's new truth tax where it's trying to shut down or limit access to information by the public and scrutiny of this government by putting financial as well as scrutiny barriers over government deliberations. We've had in other pieces of legislation what they call a Henry VIII tax proposal, which after legislation has passed gives powers to the Treasurer to dictate the terms of tax rates, but really it's a lawless tax. That's what it actually is. It is a tax that is introduced that has no legislative coverage and oversight.

This legislation has its own similar problems. When you're giving very large powers to the Treasurer to decide things like payment systems, we have mechanisms within legislation to create disallowance motions where the parliament, if it disagrees with the decision the Treasurer makes, can come in and challenge the decision of the Treasurer, simply to say these matters should be brought back before this parliament and the status quo should prevail. This exists in lots of pieces of legislation. It's an entirely reasonable proposition, and I would have thought that, when you're giving the Treasurer this volume of power, that is an appropriate place for a disallowance motion to deal with the extent that power is being given to the Treasurer in these laws. That would build a much greater sense of confidence in this legislation. It disappoints me that the government has been arrogantly dismissing the potential for a disallowance motion in this legislation, because it would improve their legislation, it would build confidence and it would be better for tempering the enthusiasms of the Treasurer in his ambition not just to be Treasurer but to do things that are going to be good for the Australian economy rather than for his own political ambition, trajectory or whatever term we're going to use these days.

At the end of the day so many Australian businesses and small businesses are dependent on payment systems today. We all deal with it. I started my speech by referring to that little sound that we know when we tap our phone, credit card or debit card. You hear that little beep when you buy a coffee at your local cafe, and so many of them are using a terminal from a bank or another platform like Tyro or Square. Those terminals are the digital embodiment of small businesses then engaging with the entire global economy. That's the basis on which they then have the capacity to manage their supply chain, their payment systems and often then their tax, and the back-end systems and operations that empower small business to be successful are so critical. It's every single one of those transactions played out that enable the revenue, liquidity and cash flow for a small business to succeed.

This stuff really matters. We currently have record small business insolvencies. It's one of those things which the government doesn't like to talk about in question time. We have record small business insolvencies right now because they have cash-flow problems, and they have cash-flow problems because the dead hand of the Australian Taxation Office is coming after them to take away their revenue and what little cash they have or because of the rising cost of inflation. The government haven't been able to control inflation, because they keep stimulating the economy to cover up the fact that there isn't private sector job growth. Whatever it is, this government is failing in the economy. The dead hand is increasing the costs on small business to the point that they are closing. When you think about that, that means a kid doesn't get their first job in their community. They don't get their first foot on the ladder of economic opportunity. They then aren't in a position to step up and get their next job, potentially for a larger business, while they go on and study or go on, of course, into full-time work. The consequences of this government's policy are real. If we get the payment systems wrong, the impact on cash flow is also real. That's the sort of thing that the Reserve Bank is looking at right now in its consultation around payment systems reform. They're looking at the balance of who is going to pay for the different components of the payment system. At the moment, their consultation paper has put out the idea that they're going to ban transaction fees because they think that's going to be the best policy outcome. A robust number of people are coming through this building making different cases about what should happen. I just had somebody come to my office and argue that there should be compelled least-cost routings forced through to the provider as well as other limitations on how the system should operate. Nobody wants to pay merchant fees and transaction fees, and they want somebody else to pay. At the same time, we need a robust payment system because it's integral to cash flow. It's very important around keeping prices low.

But we also need a system with integrity, because sitting behind that is one of the most important exposures we have around cybersecurity and risk. If we don't get that right, we expose our entire economy to components of risk. This is one of the things that the prudential regulator, APRA, and ASIC and the banks regularly stress test, because they're mindful of the exposure they have and what it can go on to do for financial stability. As the previous speaker spoke about correctly before, it's also one of the biggest pathways of exposure to things like scams. We all know people who, even with the best of intent, have found themselves exposed to scams, partly through the payment system. The payment system isn't just one of the pathways where people get exposed to scams; it can also be one of the best ways to protect Australians against scams. Banks and other financial institutions with the resources can invest in stopping that. We have to get this right.

In addition to that, we need to work with the platforms, the providers and small businesses. This was a topic that was discussed recently between myself and the Minister for Small Business in a speech we recently gave up in the mural hall about the launch of a report about digital payments, sponsored by Square but hosted by COSBOA, the small business advocacy body. The Minister for Small Business, who I have very fond affection for—she's a lovely lady amongst many things—made a very important point in her speech, being that, for this government, small business is part of their consideration and part of their decision-making. I remarked in my speech that that is a very good thing to have, but it also is a reflection that this government see small business as something to be considered.

In my speech I said, in a coalition government, small business will be at the fore of decision-making. We fundamentally believe that this nation is best governed from the citizen, the family, the community and the small business up, not from big government, big unions and big corporates down. That is the clear cleave between the Labor government and a coalition government. We believe in a nation governed from citizens, families, communities and small business up, and that is why, like with citizens, families, communities and small business, we make decisions with them at the core of our focus, not the best interests of big unions, big governments and big corporates, as the Labor Party does. That's going to be the basis on which we make decisions about things like the payment system—how we strengthen it, make sure it's got integrity and make sure it backs and enables small business to succeed and thrive? How do we position it so that it's part of the success of small business in being able to get money paid on time? If there's any exposure for small business, it is that they do not get paid on time, unlike large companies or those who do simple things like drive transactions, like with a payment system, because cash flow is king. Have you heard that expression, Deputy Speaker Georganas? I'm looking for a nod; give us a nod.

See this speech in context