Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

In response, I will comment briefly on the comments of the member for Rankin on the Tax Laws Amendment (Small Business) Bill 2007. According to ATO data as at 29 March 2007, over 850,000 taxpayers were part of the simplified tax system in the 2005-06 income year and approximately 650,000 taxpayers were part of the simplified tax system in the 2004-05 income year—an increase of some 200,000 taxpayers. As the member for Rankin would be aware, there are some two million small businesses in this country and, if that goes some way to answering his question, he can work out the percentages he likes from there.

The reality is that the Labor Party approach this debate with no real understanding of small business. It has been reflected not just in their comments in this debate but also in their policy both during their time in opposition over the last 11 years and when in government. The Labor Party do not understand small business because they are not of small business. As their former leader said, they are not here to represent small business; they are here to represent the interests of the union movement. The reality is that if you have a frontbench made up of 80 per cent of people who were either former union bosses or union hacks in one form or another, they are not people who can properly represent the interests of small business.

The question for small business is: do they want changes to the tax system, a system which has been in place since 2000? Their clear indication to me is that, over the last six or seven years, they have been working through a system to be in a position of confidence now and have the capacity to complete their BAS, to work within the obligations that have been imposed upon them by the government through the ATO. They are largely satisfied with the way in which the system works. Computer systems are now in place, particularly for small business operators. Small business do not want another round of wholesale change imposed on them by the Labor Party. If the Labor Party is going to give credit to small business, then they need to acknowledge the fact that the clear message from small business is that they want a system of certainty and improvements in some administrative practices. They do not want wholesale change to a system that has been in place since 2000.

Small business also ask the Labor Party to reverse their job-destroying industrial relations position particularly in relation to unfair dismissal. One of the biggest impediments for small business has been the fact that they have not been able to decide who can stay in their business. Small business owners risk their capital and have their houses on the line and are the last ones paid at the end of the week or the end of the month. They are creating jobs in this country. Under the Labor Party’s opposition to unfair dismissal over the last 10 years, small business has suffered in this country. If there is one message from small business to the Labor Party it is: reverse your job-destroying decision in relation to the reintroduction of the unfair dismissal laws, get behind the coalition stance on unfair dismissal laws and make it easier for small business to employ staff. And that is what we have seen over the last 12 months—326,000 jobs have been created and well over 80 per cent have been full-time positions. In the past small business have put casual employees on their staff. They have been afraid to employ full-time employees because it is too hard to part ways if things do not work out.

The reality is that Labor’s message from small business is not about BAS or BAS Easy, as the member for Rankin would have you believe, but about unfair dismissal laws. For as long as Labor says black is white, small business knows that it is no friend of small business in this country. Small business knows that a return to Labor would be a return to high interest rates for small business, a return to union domination of small business in this country, a bad outcome for small business and a bad outcome for families in this country as well.

See this speech in context