Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

Why are we debating this? Why are we talking about two pieces of legislation that both sides of this House support? There has been unequivocal, concrete, definite support from the opposition to vote on this, to get this through, and to make this happen. Why? Because it is reinstituting measures that we introduced, measures that we believed in ourselves and that we thought would be able to provide support and help to the small businesses of this country, aiding them in investing in new equipment, helping them with their cash flow, ensuring that they could grow, or, through the course of the impact of the GFC, helping them through difficult economic times and then putting them on a trajectory for further success. We believed that.

What was the first thing this government did on coming into office? They cut it. They took these measures away, claiming they were unfunded and claiming that they should not be in place. We have heard the Minister for Small Business, in times past when he was the opposition spokesperson for small business, criticise the measures that he is championing today. So, I ask again: why are we discussing this?

If the coalition are supposed to be arguing that this is something new, I think it is new in two places. One is that they are overcompensating for what we had in place. Why? Because when they cut there was a hiatus in the level of support for small business. They are now having to make up for that by putting in a bigger payment than we had when we were in government. They are also doing it because they have to. Economically, they are forced to because the impact of their 2014 budget on confidence, on consumer spending, and on business investment means that they now have to put the money in to see this investment happen. When you see investment, when you see capex at the levels that it is—and that it is failing to lift—you can tell straight away that they need to do something to support it, which is why they are putting money in at the level that they are. We are happy that they are putting these measures back. Let us get it done. There is no need for us to continually debate this. The government, through the week, called on us to support their measures. In fact, I am reminded of the words of the Minister for Small Business when in question time on 28 May he said:

The legislation is in this place. Let us get it through this place in a hurry, and let us see if Labor is true to its word. It is not about the backswing; it is all about the follow through. Let us follow through and get these measures enacted

That was said on 28 May. The only problem is that on 12 May, when the budget was brought down, we indicated there and then that we would support these measures. We actually supported them and commented favourably on them. Why wouldn't we? As I said earlier, we introduced these measures. We have reconfirmed that in a number of other places, not least of which being in this place during question time. Today we said, 'Let's put it to a vote.' We said, 'Bring it on. Let's have this vote, move on, and get the legislation to the Senate.' And yet, what happened? We were denied it.

Why? Because those opposite wanted to have a speech-led recovery. They had all their members ready to let loose with their soliloquies, telling us about how close they were to small business and how much they supported small business. Instead of action and getting the support for these pieces of legislation, those opposite did not want the resolution. They did not want the matter to be put and did not want the vote to happen. They believe that those coalition speeches are the engine room of Australia's small businesses—that those speeches alone would power Australian business. That is why we were forced to endure speech after speech from the coalition, to ensure that we heard how close they were to small business.

We are continually told how close those opposite are to small business. They believe that they are closer to small business and that they have an affinity for small business. They tell us that so many of them have been small business operators themselves. That is great. I am absolutely supportive of that, and I congratulate them on it. But if they are so close to small business, why did every single one of them support a cut to those small businesses when the government removed those measures. And it not only removed them; it made them retrospective. This had an impact on small business. They tell us they have an affinity with small business and that they understand small business, yet they voted to stop measures that supported those businesses, and made that retrospective. They put that pain on small businesses.

They are not friends of small businesses. They betrayed the small businesses of this country with their measures and actions and the way that they refused to support them on the way through. And now, in an attempt to rebuild their credibility with small business, they have put forward these measures that reinstitute the measures we had in government and that should have been in place for a lot longer.

Instead we have to listen to them, like windup toy monkeys banging away at their cymbals, telling us about how close they are to small business. They have been told, I understand, that they are only supposed to speak for five minutes to try and get this through more quickly, and the reason they have been doing this is because they have been embarrassed. When we had a chance to get this legislation through they refused to take it because symbolism rather than action matters more to those opposite, and now we are forced to go through this. I will not speak for the full 15 minutes. I am more than happy to cut my contribution. I am happy for them to cut their contribution because I would rather we get to a vote, put these measures in place and get this up to the Senate and through. We have also indicated we will not submit it to an inquiry process. We are happy to see the vote put to the other place so we get these measures in place ahead of 1 July.

But on the way through, I will make a few quick observations about the government's claims that this budget is friendly to another section of small business: start-ups. Those is the start-up community, while they may be small businesses, are in a league of their own. They have a productivity and an employment generating capacity that makes them quite different from other small businesses. It is something that will be a national priority for us to see how we are able to create an environment in which start-ups in this country can flourish a lot more. My comments take nothing away from other small businesses in this nation, and I recognise their contribution to the strength of our economy. But we should recognise the powerful ability of start-ups to drive productivity and economic and employment growth in this country.

You cannot keep saying in a federal budget that you support start-ups but not do anything to support them. By that I mean that we saw very little to advance the types of things that start-ups are concerned about, for instance, the critical skills shortages that have been in place for a number of years that affect start-ups and their ability to progress. We do need to see more in investment in education, particularly, as we have said on this side, in terms of STEM skills in this nation. We do need to see, for instance, more to deal with the capital issues that confront and inhibit the ability of start-ups in this country to move much more quickly, much more strongly.

Certainly, we saw money assigned in this budget for a legal framework for the establishment of crowd source equity funding platforms in this nation, but we still have not got the legislation before us. We have indicated to the government we are more than prepared to work with the government on a bipartisan basis to fast track the introduction of legislation in this place that would see a framework that will allow crowd source equity funding platforms to emerge in Australia. I have had some initial, very positive discussions with the small business minister, and we are certainly happy to do that.

But my criticism of the lack of initiatives and support in the start-up space is not something that I have just come up with. It is not something that is without any sort of substance or evidence. I have, for example, seen the comments of some that have said that there is a gaping hole in the budget where there should have been a vision for a digital future—people like Matt Barrie, who have helped found start-ups that have had a massive impact not only here but elsewhere. Matt Barrie, who is involved in Freelancer, has said, for example:

Government does not know the difference between the word startup and SME at all … Every time there is a discussion about startups it morphs into SMEs, and that's why we don't see anything major happen … but I can't think of a greater industry for producing multiples than technology. The fact a 20-year-old can start a company worth $20 billion in a decade is mind-blowing.

They say that we should be working a lot faster to help start-ups in this country. He is right. Andrew Johnson from Australian Computer Society says:

… many initiatives in the budget were supportive but it was worrying not to see a significant focus on STEM skills.

Rui Rodrigues from Tank Stream Ventures, say:

Overall, it's positive that the government has mentioned startups twice in the budget but specific incentives are still lacking …

We need to see more in this space not less, and I certainly commend the government. If they were prepared to work with us, we will work with them in advancing the interests of this sector because it will have a massive benefit to the nation and will ensure that we have jobs for the next generation of Australians in years to come.

See this speech in context