Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the member for Dunkley's motion regarding the national business names register. As this motion notes, the national business names register has been in operation since 28 May 2012. Previously, business name registers were used in each of the eight separate states and territories, which made way for the single national register administered by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

The new register was set up ostensibly to make it easier for small businesses to register their name and to only have to do it in one national jurisdiction. However, just as this Labor government did with pink batts home insulation and the National Broadband Network, it has made a complete hash of its introduction. As the member for Dunkley highlighted, a large number of people across Australia have had difficulty registering, renewing, paying and transferring their business names since the national business names register commenced operation in 2012.

On its website, ASIC Commissioner Greg Tanzer has acknowledged that:

… there have certainly been frustrations for some people using the new online technology or trying to ring us for help.

This has caused incredible frustration for business owners for what realistically should take a couple of minutes to do. In particular, I have been contacted by numerous constituents who have had considerable difficulty using the ASIC website.

A constituent in Keperra was contacted by ASIC in early March advising him that his business name had been automatically transferred to ASIC's business names register on 28 May 2012 and that his registration was due for renewal. Instructions were provided on how to use the website. Unfortunately, it was anything but simple. According to him, for several consecutive days he attempted to use the ASIC website, enter his ASIC key and use one of their payment options all to no avail.

When he tried to use the provided telephone number to call ASIC, he had to wait for almost an hour and then was simply told that he could not pay over the phone. Instead, he was told that he had to use the website, which of course could not process his payment.

Another constituent from Upper Brookfield contacted my office in April after experiencing a similar situation. After waiting a considerable amount of time calling the ASIC hotline, he felt completely ignored by ASIC who could not assure him that if ASIC were unable to process his payment then his business name registration would not be cancelled.

Significant privacy concerns have arisen from the new rules, which stipulate that small business owners must use a physical or street address. And if you do use your home address for service of documents, it is displayed publicly on the business names register. These concerns have been constantly raised by owners of home based businesses who have had their personal addresses appearing on the register. There have also been problems with the sale and transfer of business names. Instead of being able to seamlessly transfer from one owner to another, under the new law, business name owners have had to deregister the name, and wait for the other person to take the name without any assurance that anyone else might be able to take it.

The blame for failing to support the implementation of this scheme lies squarely at the feet of this Labor government. Since its introduction, the coalition and small business have been warning the government about the problems in transferring business names and about the privacy concerns of home based businesses, which the government has continually ignored. Finally, in this year's budget announced in May, the Labor government finally acknowledged these lingering problems by proposing to spend a further $7.8 million on the scheme. In total, the register's implementation has cost government $133 million, including the $125.2 million allocated in the 2010-11 budget.

The failure to implement the national business names register is symptomatic of this government's inability to listen to the concerns of small business. Labor promised a 'one-in, one-out' approach to regulations; instead, they have introduced more than 20,000 regulations while repealing only 200.

The Prime Minister promised that there would not be a carbon tax under a government she led; instead, with the Greens and Independents, she set about implementing the world's only economy-wide carbon tax. In this case, Labor promised to make the national business names register easier for small business; instead, they have completely botched its implementation and have only created more headaches for already struggling small business owners.

See this speech in context