Keith Wolahan (Menzies, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you to those who have come before me. We have had other omnibus bills in the other chamber. Of the fair work omnibus bill in particular we were quite critical because it included things that were related to the headline but weren't really related to the purpose of the bill. We made the point that they were designed to create more of a wedge. But this omnibus bill is not about that; this omnibus bill seeks to put together a variety of small-business related matters that can be included only in a lumped-up bill as we have here.

The coalition will be supporting the Treasury Laws Amendment (Support for Small Business and Charities and Other Measures) Bill 2023 but, as my colleagues have said before me, it does not go far enough. It does not go far enough in particular measures that are within the bill, which we will be putting amendments forward to fix. My colleagues have also, quite rightly, spoken about the lack of proper support to small business, and I can single out two areas.

Firstly, many before me have noted that 42 per cent of people in this country who are employed are employed in small businesses, and the percentage of businesses that are small is in the high 90s. It is a huge section of our economy and of society, and most small-business owners have dreams and aspirations of being medium and maybe even large businesses. Most large businesses started, once upon a time, as a small business—even big companies like BHP and Qantas were small businesses at one stage. We would like to think that, in 100 years from now, the Stock Exchange will be full of companies that may be small businesses that started about now. We have to ask what barriers are there for individuals and families choosing to make those decisions of whether to establish those businesses, to put their own capital and effort on the line?

One of the barriers that all sides of politics need to look at is the sheer volume of law and regulations across local government, state government and the Commonwealth. In the other chamber, in another debate, I noted the sheer volume in just some of the relevant provisions included in the Fair Work Act, at almost 1,100 pages. Now, with the 'closing loopholes' omnibus bill, we're seeking to add another 278 pages, with an explanatory memorandum that goes to 305 pages. I spoke about the almost 4,000 pages of the Corporations Act and the almost 5,000 pages of the Income Tax Assessment Act. The GST act is almost 700 pages—and on and on it goes. It cannot be the case that anyone looking to start a business must freeze and engage expensive lawyers just to understand what's going on and what their obligations are. We should be removing that burden rather than adding to it. For small businesses and aspiring medium and large businesses, even the recent changes to the definition of 'casual', 'work' and 'employment' in the other chamber are prohibitive. The definition of 'casual' in the bill goes to three pages, and there are 15 factors, and if you get it wrong, there are prohibitive and serious legal consequences. The definition of 'employment' goes to seven pages. For a small-business owner or someone who works in a small business, they should be terms that have common meaning—a plain English meaning.

We know, with the rising cost of living, that the benefit of casual employment isn't one just for the employer; it's also for the employee. We are hearing of many people who are taking on second and third jobs just to meet their ongoing cost-of-living obligations. These are people who might have a full-time job but now require other work just to pay the bills and to meet the $24,000 extra a year they now need to find on a $750,000 mortgage. That's after-tax money. You need to almost get $50,000 a year to meet that. For those who have that obligation now, the only way to do it is to take on extra casual work. When we talk about supporting small business, we really need to turn our mind to how we are putting further barriers in the way for people to be employed casually and how small-business operators can engage in a business that relies upon the flexibility of casual work. It is not good enough that we have an omnibus bill here that seeks to tinker at the edges. It doesn't actually deal with the substantive issues that are there for people.

There are a few other exceptions in here, and credit was properly given to the previous government about the instant asset write-off. That was a really important reform that made a difference to businesses. It should be extended, and that will be one of the amendments that we are seeking to do. In conclusion, the coalition will be supporting this bill. It doesn't go far enough, and we will be making the amendments.

See this speech in context