Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Education) Share this | Hansard source

I am rising in support of the amendments moved by the member for Lowe on behalf of our shadow minister for regional development. Just to make it clear: the point of the amendments is to support the threshold. We have no problem with the threshold for eligibility for this program being for businesses with up to 100 employees, but we do not accept the definition that a business with 100 employees is a small business. We say the threshold is fine, let us have it up to 100 people, but the amendments change it from being called a small business because we just do not accept that that is a small business. We ask that it be called an ‘eligible business’ and for that terminology to be used throughout the bill. That is more realistic because a business with 100 employees is not a small business. It is not the definition accepted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and we do not accept that definition either. So we have no problem with the threshold—let us make it open to all those businesses with up to 100 employees; but let us not continue this artificial political construct that that is in fact a small business.

In considering the amendment, we also ask that the government looks seriously at the concerns Labor has raised with the way drought assistance has failed to reach those who needed it in the past. As we have heard, the stated aim of this bill is to extend exceptional circumstances assistance to agriculturally dependent businesses that have been adversely affected by the drought. Of course we all support that aim. In this debate we have heard the stories from around Australia about the impact that this drought is having on our communities and on the families who are affected. Whether it is the worst drought in 1,000 years or the worst drought in 100 years, we know this is having a devastating effect on people around the country. Forty-four per cent of the nation is declared to be in exceptional circumstances and that is leading to the call on the government to support the families and businesses affected.

One thing that really struck me—it was actually quite moving—was when the member for Mallee was speaking about the experiences he has had in his electorate. He talked about the difficulty faced by farmers and businesspeople when they request this assistance. He said that it is quite difficult for people to reach that point and to go to a financial counsellor, Centrelink, a local member or whomever it might be and to say: ‘I just can’t do this any more. I do need to apply for this support.’ When you hear those stories, you realise the responsibility that we have in this place not to make it any harder for those people than it already is. Our concern on this side of the chamber, having seen the rollout of earlier programs, is that perhaps the government has been making it harder than it necessarily has to be for people.

That is our challenge to the government, our challenge today to the parliamentary secretary who is taking this bill through. Can you guarantee that this bill will deliver to the small businesses in drought affected areas? As we have heard, we regard this as a very legitimate question to ask based on the government’s past record because we have been in this position before. The government has made an earlier attempt to assist small businesses affected by drought through the Small Business Interest Rate Relief program.

We have heard it from quite a few speakers on this side, but I think it is still worth repeating because the figures are just so stark in demonstrating the failures of earlier programs. The Australian National Audit Office really shone a light on this in its performance audit in 2004-05 into the drought assistance programs. Those figures issue a challenge to the government to make sure that it is getting this right. The estimate was that there would be 17½ thousand applications received for drought assistance. In fact, only 452 applications were received and only 182 were successful. We are asking, what went wrong last time? Where are the guarantees this time? Where is the evidence that this government has now got it right?

I note the parliamentary secretary’s assurances in her summing-up that the government has been out listening to small businesses in these communities. You obviously had good intentions when you designed the earlier programs—but when they were so poorly targeted and the take-up rate was so low we really have to ask: has the government got it right this time? We have to do more than wring our hands and issue good intentions; we have to get it right for those drought affected communities. (Time expired)

See this speech in context