Malcolm Turnbull (Wentworth, Liberal Party, Minister for Communications) Share this | Hansard source

If Bill Shorten is the answer, one shudders to think what the question may be. Really, we are being advised by the Labor Party on entrepreneurship, advised by a party that, when it was in government, had not one member of its cabinet—not one—that had ever been in business, no business background at all. The serried ranks of apparatchiks—there they are before us. That is the problem with the Labor Party. It has no understanding of business.

I am thrilled that the member for Blaxland has met with Tan Le in Silicon Valley. It is good. It is obviously a new experience for him to go there to Silicon Valley. I have been going there for decades. I have started over a dozen companies myself. And, by the way, so have many of my colleagues, because one of the big differences between our side of politics and Labor's is that we do not theorise about business, large or small; we do not believe that government is the solution to every business problem; we know that it springs from the enterprise and entrepreneurship of millions of Australians. The fundamental problem with the Labor Party, Madam Speaker—and you heard it from the member for Blaxland today—is that Labor believes in its heart, in its DNA, that government knows what is best. We believe government's role is to enable you to do what is best.

Tan Le is a very impressive Australian entrepreneur. I have made her acquaintance too. She is quite a star in Silicon Valley, among the many Australian entrepreneurs there. And do you know what she raised with me, Madam Speaker, when I was there sometime ago? She complained to me about the fact that the Labor Party had so wrecked the employee share scheme legislation that start-up companies in Australia could not afford to offer shares or options as incentives to their employees. And she was not alone. The single most common complaint I have had from entrepreneurs in the technology space, talking about the legislative priorities that this parliament should address itself to, is about this fundamental problem. In 2009, in a fit of madness, the Labor government decided that any employee that was given an option or a share by their employer, even if it was in a start-up, where the shares could be worth a lot or—more likely, regrettably, given the success rate of small companies—nothing, would be taxed. Even there, those shares, those bits of paper, would be taxed and they would have to go and borrow the money to pay the taxes. Of course, as usual, what happened? Only the very largest companies could hire the accounting firms and the lawyers, at great expense, to structure their way around it. And what did one small Australian start-up after another do? It moved precisely to where the member for Blaxland was—to Silicon Valley. So I would say to the honourable member: that is an absolute own goal, a complete own goal.

As for crowdfunding, yes, it is an important part of the mix and, yes, the government will be presenting legislation on that later in the year. It is, however, very important to get it right, because crowdfunding has to balance the powerful aggregational powers of the internet—being able to get a meaningful amount of money in lots of small bits—with consumer protection. Getting that balance is critically important, so it is worthwhile taking care to ensure that the legislation is drafted correctly.

Let us turn now to the question of coding and STEM subjects in schools. I think all honourable members agree that it is a very, very important part of our curriculum, of our educational objectives, to ensure that people—young children, in particular—have experience with coding. As a father of a schoolteacher whose teaches coding at her school, I am aware of the keen interest that young people have in this area. I just want to remind the honourable member that the government is investing $3½ million—as part of $12 million in an Industry, Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda—to support the teaching of STEM subjects. We are focused on promoting STEM subjects in schools and increasing the amount of coding taught in schools. It is very important, of course, that this be done with the cooperation of state education departments. It is also very important that we see more students completing their education with maths or science—and you heard the Minister for Education and Training talking about the importance of that yesterday.

The Leader of the Opposition's thought bubble on coding and STEM subjects is quite interesting because, as usual, it is amazingly inconsistent. The backflips he is capable of are truly athletic. If only he were as eloquent as he is flexible, he would make a bigger contribution.

In 2008, then Prime Minister Rudd cut the cost of students studying STEM subjects, but this was then reversed in MYEFO 2011-12, with average student contributions for mathematics, statistics and science almost doubling in the cost per unit to about $8,300. They then extended this to existing students studying STEM in the following year's budget, resulting in considerable savings over the forward estimates. This is what the then minister, Senator Evans, said:

The reduction in student contributions for mathematics, statistics and science units since 2009 has not been effective in substantially increasing the number of students undertaking maths and science at university. Students are predominantly motivated not by price but by their interests, abilities and career preferences when selecting courses.

This is a very, very important point. The best way to get more students studying STEM, to get more people starting companies in Australia, is to ensure that government does not throw up stupid obstacles, such as the Labor Party's legislation on ESOPs; that government makes it easier to start companies; that government has a strong economy that encourages resilience, entrepreneurship and enterprise; and, above all, that government ensures that it does its job of managing the economy as efficiently as possible.

A big part of my portfolio and the honourable member's shadow portfolio is of course the National Broadband Network. That was a project—remember this—which was conceived in 77 days. It was started in 77 days. That was all the time that Labor took to embark on a $43 billion project. They had no idea how much it would cost or how long it would take to build. Indeed, just before the election the Labor Party, so unaware of what this project would cost, were saying it was costing only $2,200 to pass and connect premises with fibre. Now that nearly one million premises have been passed across the whole network, we now actually know what it costs. The real figure is $3,600, plus another $700 for the capitalised costs of the Telstra pits and pipes.

So the reality is that, on this massive infrastructure project, so important to technology and connectivity, so important to innovation, so important to all the things the honourable member claims to be committed to, the Labor Party was mishandling the investment in an extraordinary manner. In fact, Bill Scales, in his independent audit of this project, said, 'This policy process that set up the NBN, of Labor, in 77 days was rushed, chaotic and inadequate, with only perfunctory consideration by the cabinet.' That is the level of incompetence we have from Labor and the reason why Labor cannot be trusted when it talks about creating jobs and fostering innovation. Labor wants us to believe that a government composed of people with no relevant business experience, with a shocking track record, can somehow or other provide the spark, provide the leadership, to the entrepreneurs of Australia. That is what it promises.

Let us never forget that, in those six years, Labor spent $2 in extra spending for every $1 they received in extra revenue. That sums up this chronicle of incompetence and why the honourable member's claims to be in favour of innovation fall absolutely flat.

See this speech in context