Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to add a few thoughts about the Business Names Registration Bill 2011, the Business Names Registration Bill (Fees) Bill 2011 and Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011. These bills aim to ensure that entities behind businesses can be identified, that the inconvenience in compliance costs of multiple registrations is avoided and that names that are undesirable, offensive or misleading are not registered.

I indicate the coalition's support for these bills, we think they are a step in the right direction and follow on from some work that was instigated, interestingly, by the coalition back in 2006-07.

Mr Neumann interjecting—

Gee, they have peaked early haven't they. They must have got slapped around a bit much over border protection this morning. They have come in a little bit politically punch drunk. Whoever would have thought that this would have inspired—

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member will return to the bill. Order!

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Not even one minute in.

Mr Neumann interjecting—

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order!

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I get excited about business names registration, I do not think there are many who normally do in this chamber, but it is good to see the level of vigour that you guys have about this is in vivid contrast to speaking up about the impact of the carbon tax on the small businesses in your electorate. It is quite remarkable.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Blair will listen in silence.

Government members interjecting—

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As I continue to be very objective and very balanced in accounting for the history that has led to where we are, it was during 2006-07, long before the colleagues that are so vocal now were making any contribution in this place, that the opportunity for regulatory reform and red-tape reduction in the area of business names registration was recognised by the coalition government and pursued. Stakeholder consultation was undertaken in September and October 2006. Market testing was completed, you might be interested to know, in October 2006. A discussion paper, always a great output from Treasury, was released to accompany consultation with industry associations in those halcyon months of September and October 2007—a time of feverish investigation and activity relating to business names.

On 3 July 2008 the Council of Australian Governments agreed to develop a single national system for registering and regulating business names, and that was not a bad conclusion to arrive at as it built on that outstanding impetus and early work the coalition had done. This proposal was identified as one of 27 regulatory reforms that form part of the National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy. Public consultation on the second exposure drafts of the bills took place in April 2011.

The Senate Economics Legislation Committee, equally captured by the excitement of this topic, investigated the bills and released its report in August 2011 on the second exposure drafts of the bills and recommended that they be introduced and passed. We think that is all perfectly reasonable—an orderly process instigated by the coalition that led to some good constructive work through COAG and to the government arriving at an improved bill, which we are now debating.

Currently, businesses are required to register their names in each state and territory in which they trade. Each state and territory jurisdiction has its own fees and processes. There is a useful comparison of those fees in the explanatory memorandum that shows that the anticipated national fees for registration and renewal should produce some savings across all individual jurisdictions with the exception of the Northern Territory. For those businesses operating in a number of jurisdictions there are savings to be had. If you are operating a business in every state and territory, you may well face costs of around $1,000 for three years worth of registration.

This legislation will establish a new national business name register operated by ASIC. To trade under a business name an entity will be required to register and include the business name in written communications relating to the commercial dealings of the business. An ABN will also need to be displayed on a smaller number of documents consistent with ACN requirements for incorporated entities under the Corporations Act. Interestingly, any new application for a business name will need to be accompanied by an ABN or a concurrent ABN registration application. The existing business name holders will be able to renew their business names without an ABN. However, they will require an ABN if they wish to register for AUSkey. The reason that is relevant is that, at the moment, this change will represent an added administrative burden for businesses that currently are not required to have an ABN under existing legislation. They will now be required to register their business name regardless of their turnover or current exemptions from holding an ABN. That is a new impost but we think on balance it is not a completely unreasonable expectation. For those microbusinesses planning to establish under this new regime, there will be that additional action step and the administrative tasks associated with it.

If a business name is currently registered on a state or territory register, once transferred to the national system the entity's registered name will remain the same. There is provision in this legislation for duplicate names that may be perfectly valid in individual jurisdictions but when brought under a national framework create some confusion. Under this legislation a geographical identifier will be attached to that registration. Under the bills a business name will be available to an entity if it is not identical nor nearly identical to another business name, company name or a name on a notified state or territory register. There is still some illumination required of what those protocols about identical and nearly identical names will be and also of how to identify undesirable names. We could all probably think of a few and a few come to mind occasionally, but there is still a bit of work to be done on that determination. We are very interested in seeing how that is handled, given some practical experiences where names have slipped through that have certainly raised my eyebrows and those of many others. A useful step in the right direction and one that really opens up a whole new conversation is the positive idea of linking business name, trademark and domain name registration systems to facilitate efficient identification of suitable identifiers. Basically, the bill is saying, and we think it is a positive step, that if you are contemplating a business name and you find that there is already a trademark or a domain name in that space—as I understand it and as has been conveyed in the material available to me—you will be notified that you are not far off or that you may even be treading on the toes of someone who already has a trademark or a domain name. Because of jurisdictional issues about what the Commonwealth in Australia can do, that in itself may not stop the registration of the business name. The business name may still proceed, although you will be doing so having been informed, hopefully, that you may well face civil action, some litigation, for you to desist from doing that by those who feel that their trademark or domain name has been infringed upon.

My colleagues have asked me to mention that they wish the reverse applied, that if someone were actually registering a domain name there would be some reference back to registered business names. Ambush marketing, or opportunistically spotting domain names that may be of interest to a company and then making that name available at a considerably inflated price, is an enterprise that some carry out. I am particularly familiar with that as it has affected me. It is very difficult to deal with that and no streamlined, satisfactory process has been put in place. I am flagging that in the context of the connections that are drawn here to make sure that business names are entered into in an informed way, with an awareness that you might be infringing upon trademarks and domain names. It would be nice, particularly in the domain name space, if the reverse applied. I understand there are some jurisdictional issues that would need to be resolved. That is a cause of great concern for many small businesses which feel that ambush marketing is being directed at their business, and there is concern at the detrimental impact on their reputation and on their commercial prospects. It is a problem that would require considerable expense to turn around. It was flagged that this bill may be an opportunity for that. I am not sure that that is quite the case but I put on the record that concern.

Another issue I touched on earlier is where a name is not available because it contains words or expressions that are identical, restricted or undesirable, as per a plan determination. We are particularly interested in how that will operate. The determination is not available as yet for us to know what may offend in terms of an undesirable or a restricted name, but no doubt we will get to see that at some point.

Some strict liability offences are established under the bill, such as carrying on a business under an unregistered business name, failure to include a business name in written communications, failure to display a business name at a place if the business is open to the public, carrying on a business while disqualified and a failure to comply with a request from ASIC to provide some of that information.

Also noteworthy is that there has been some thoughtfulness and sensitivity towards home based businesses. I can understand the detail and the specific location of a commercial premise being identifiable in publicly accessible information. I am not certain that is the greatest idea for a home based business and some regard has been given to that by not including street addresses and details of that kind. Again, I think that is a thoughtful improvement in the legislation and I congratulate the government for doing that.

There is also a hanging question, which was identified in the Senate committee process—that is, the extent to which information held by the register and available for government use might also be made accessible to external agencies or even to private organisations where they are fulfilling a Commonwealth obligation. The example that was raised at the Senate inquiry process related to finance providers. You would be aware of the considerable obligations on finance providers to provide details to the government about financial transactions, AUSTRAC obligations, money laundering and the like. A lot of the back-end mechanics of identifying who is involved in those transactions could well be assisted by access to the material being held by the register. On balance I accept the government's advice from its department that that was not the reason for which that information was provided and that, under privacy principles, it would therefore be unwise to expand its use, given that the material was provided for business name registration purposes not for some financial service compliance obligation. I understand that point and we accept on balance the conclusion that the government has arrived at. We are just highlighting where the Commonwealth is imposing obligations on organisations and individuals. If it can assist those people in fulfilling those obligations, that is probably not a bad thing. We will keep an eye on that. We will just see how that plays out, because there seems to be some opportunity there was well.

The only other things I would touch on relate to some questions that I posed to the responsible minister. I have identified a number of those areas already, and I have touched on the issue of trademarks as well. Trademarks are quite a challenging area for small business. At the moment we are seeking to assist a small business which operates in the electricity space—measuring and monitoring technology, energy efficiency and all of that. The business has been doing a great job for a number of years; business is fine. But a multinational has come along and decided that it wants to do something where the name it is using includes an acronym, and the acronym has two of three letters which are the same as the second word in this business name. Now, they are not even in the same space. One operates in agriculture; the other operates in electricity and energy efficiency. But, because the small businessman does not have the deep pockets of the multinational, he is being subjected to an action demanding that he desist from using a business name that he has been operating under for nearly a decade.

Now, he has come to me saying, 'I do not have this money.' He knows what area he is working in and things are going okay for him as a small business. But, faced with a multinational agricultural and food processing company that seeks to use the acronym GAP to talk about a quality process for manufacturing food and saying, 'Well, your three-letter word that finishes with AP is very similar to GAP,' what is he supposed to do? Where does he go? He is pulling his hair out; he has been given these deadlines and a pile of paper you cannot throw your leg over which has obviously been produced at great expense. But where is his justice? It is just another example in my mind of how often legal processes and even government decision making is very much shaped through the eyes of big business and big parties, with which you can negotiate and consult, while the small and microbusiness communities are just left to deal with it—and deal with the collateral damage, almost, of being expected to be a multinational, to compete fairly on a question where they have been drawn into this having committed no wrong. But someone thinks they might take them out because they can.

This is an area of some concern. This space touches on it; I mentioned the domain name example earlier. I would encourage the government to turn their minds to these kinds of practical challenges that are being experienced by small and microbusinesses to find some remedies that are affordable and accessible. We had some ideas prior to the election about a small business and family enterprise ombudsman and some dispute resolution processes. I am pleased that the government that took no new specific small business commitment to the last election has decided to outsource its policy development. It has picked up a few of ours. Wherever they might come from, if they are a good idea and they help small business, I say to the government, 'Knock yourselves out; there are probably a dozen more good small business and family enterprise ideas they might want to pick up on the way through.'

Finally, I touch on another one of these interconnected issues. If you are denied an ABN for whatever reason, you are then denied a business name under this framework. Now the problem is—and I know that the portfolio involved would of course be very judicious in the way it is exercising the discretions these bills provide them—that if you run into an obstacle and you do not get an ABN from the tax office, ASIC and the departmental officials responsible for this area would basically say, 'Well, you take that up with the tax office; that is a decision made somewhere else.' But the cascading effect is that you cannot actually trade. And at this time when the government has instigated the most appalling attack on independent contractors I have seen, when two million Australians, legitimate small businesses, derive their livelihoods from independent contracting, the government has asked the tax office to give independent contractors a bit of a hard time, to try to push them more into this traditional employee-employer type of relationship. I can understand the government wanting to do that when the Prime Minister talked about—

Mr Tehan interjecting—

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Wannon will be quiet.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These are gripping contributions. I am saddened that government members are heckling me about a very important point about how independent contractors are a legitimate force—

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Dunkley will come back to the bill, please.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Small Business, Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And if I can illustrate the connection again—which I thought I did, but I will do it again—if you are denied an ABN, you are denied a business name. That then makes how ABNs are allocated and the grounds on which they might be refused incredibly relevant to this bill. I am just touching on the point that, at this time when the government has such poor form about its sustained and coordinated attack, at least three government agencies are going after independent contractors because they operate outside this employer-employee paradigm, which is the only kind of livelihood the government seems to be able to understand. That then can result in people being denied a business name, which then risks triggering the strict liability penalty in the year of trading without a registered business name, so it is incredibly significant. I would like to think that at some time the government will have a realisation that independent contractors are very legitimate as a business and that they make an invaluable contribution to the Australian economy. They are a legitimate way of engaging expertise and talent and recruitment of people for a fixed period of time under quite specific rules about who is a legitimate independent contractor and who is not.

What those independent contractors do not need is yet another coordinated assault on their livelihoods, and on the livelihoods of those they facilitate through their work, by some dodgy use of ABN denial to deny them a business name which makes them in breach of the law if they trade. So I think it is very relevant and a very important point. We know there is a shifty crowd that have organised secret meetings—originally denied by government ministers and subsequently confirmed in Senate estimates—a coordinated strategy between this Labor government and the union movement to conduct an organised campaign against independent contractors. Here there is risk of another point of attack, of the denial of an ABN; therefore the inability to have a business name registered and therefore the risk of strict liability, an offence of carrying on a business that is under an unregistered business name. I think those connections are fairly clear.

In supporting this bill, I have outlined a number of areas where we will maintain a watching brief. There are some opportunities to improve the mechanics, but we should not lose sight of these interconnections between other areas that impact on small business viability and their chance to trade and to participate in the Australian economy because the record of the government in this is not flash, with 300,000 thousand jobs lost in small business since Labor was elected. There is no sign of relief on the radar screen and you can understand the considerable suspicion about what else might be going on as relates to the ABN process of registering a business name.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I speak in support of the Business Names Registration Bill 2011 and cognate bills. I have a confession to make. I am rather fond of the member for Dunkley. Sometimes he can be cheeky and sometimes irreverent. But one of the things that he has not done today is listen to what former Labour Deputy Prime Minister in the UK Michael Foot once said, 'When making a speech always surprise,' because today we had the Tory tosh, the salivating of sloganism across the chamber from those opposite, from the member for Dunkley. We had that diatribe. In the past it was the communists, then the socialists, then the unions and now it is government. It is extraordinary. They are always campaigning on fear, never on hope, even in this good legislation before the chamber today. If you listen to the member for Dunkley, he might have supported it in the 12th, 13th, 14th or 15th year of the previous coalition government but, no, this is good legislation initiated by a federal Labor government. What he did not recognise, when it came to national competition policy, was that that was initiated by the Keating Labor government, and when it came to microeconomic reform and national regulatory reform, it was the Hawke and Keating Labor governments which did these sorts of things. Those opposite never actually walked the walk; they just talked the talk when it came to support for small business. Take this particular legislation, and the Australian Consumer Law which came into operation on 1 January this year, which replaced 20 separate acts and provided a single national law concerning consumer protection and fair trading, to make sure we have that seamless economy. Those opposite did not do it. But the Productivity Commission estimated that this reform would deliver a net gain to the community of between $1.5 billion and $4.5 billion every year. Or take the consumer credit legislation—a new national consumer credit law which commenced on 1 July 2010, replacing eight state and territory regulatory regimes and providing a range of financial services reforms, including to mortgage broking, margin lending, non-deposit-taking institutions—all done by a federal Labor government. Those opposite did not do it. And this legislation—the primary purpose of which is to establish a national business names registration scheme—again, was initiated by a federal Labor government; those opposite did not do it in 11½ years. There were papers. There was discussion. There was lots of process. But there was no action—they talk the talk, not walk the walk.

The primary purpose of this legislation is to make sure that any business that does not operate under its own entity name registers its name and details on a national register to enable those who engage or propose to engage with that particular business to determine the identity of the entity behind the business name and its contact details. This is important. If you are dealing with a business, you want to know who you are dealing with. If they are in debt to you and you need to take legal action, you need to know who is behind the business. Who actually runs it? Who is the mastermind? Who are the company directors? Who are the shareholders? Who are the people who actually run this business? It is not just a name. Who actually owns it? So this is important for business, and for business certainty; it is important for making sure that, whether you are in the Torres Strait or Tasmania, in Palm Beach or Perth, you have the same access to the same kind of registration and the same kind of opportunity to make sure that you can deal with certainty with another business.

The legislation will develop a national business name registration system with seamless online registration for both Australian business numbers, ABNs, and business names, operated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Currently, each state and territory runs its own show. Presently, if you are going to register across the states and territories of Australia, you can pay up to $1,000 if you are a business for registering a business name for three years. That is just an unacceptable business cost. So, from now on in, under the national registration scheme, you will only pay one fee of about $70 to register for three years, with the option of paying $30 to apply for a one-year registration. This comes about through a process—and I accept, the member for Dunkley, that it came through a process: the national partnership agreement, and of course through the COAG process in which there were coalition governments and Labor governments.

In his media release of 17 August, the federal Minister for Small Business, the Hon. Nick Sherry, has made the point that our proposed national registration scheme will mean that business will pay one fee and face only one process to register their business names nationally. He said:

Together with related initiatives such as the Australian Business Licence Information Service and the Australian Business Account, the benefits of the national business names registration system amount to $1.5 billion over 8 years.

That is an enormous sum of money and it will save business a lot.

Locally, this will make an impact. I contacted Tony Axford, the manager of the Business Enterprise Centre Ipswich Region—and I want to commend Tony and his team for the work they have done in the Blair electorate, in Ipswich and the Somerset region, in relation to the floods which have hit my area so hard. They have done a great job, and recently we gave them $100,000 of small business advisory money, which is making a difference in the local area through workshops, mentoring and the assistance they are providing as well. Hundreds of businesses in Ipswich and the Somerset region were flooded. In an email to me he made the point that the business enterprise centresaround the country:

… are in full support of this bill, as most of the small and micro business cannot afford in the past to register business names in all states …

And he said:

The BEC network which works with over 160,000 business per year, have said the most common issue is to be able to afford to register the business name Australia wide which will enable branding protection.

I think that is an important point: make sure that someone cannot gazump you in another state, because we know the dingo fences no long apply. It does not matter whether it is accountancy practices or legal practices or if you are selling curtains or carpets because across the country people have businesses in Sydney, Melbourne and Canberra. We have great metropolises along the east coast and throughout areas like Albury-Wodonga and places like Tweed Heads and Coolangatta where the boundaries between the states are quite artificial. I have always made the point that there are a lot of oddities and eccentricities about our federation. I am sure our founding fathers would have thought differently in relation to this.

I want to acknowledge the work undertaken by the Minister for Small Business on this. I think this is a big issue. To understand why it is so important you need to understand the cost and the certainty. Currently, as I said, businesses face different fees and a bureaucratic process to register their business in each state and territory in which they undertake business. I make the point that in my home state of Queensland a business has to pay $133.60 for a one-year registration or $255.60 for a three-year registration, but that varies with other states. In New South Wales a business has to pay $160 a year to register a business name. In the ACT it costs $151 for a three-year registration or $221 for a five-year registration. In Tasmania this same business would have to pay $140. In Western Australia it would pay just $90. In Victoria it would pay $85.50. In the Northern Territory it is really just $66 to register a business name. There are more than 30,000 businesses that operate in multiple jurisdictions and this equates to thousands of dollars in fees a year. That does not include the figures for what I have said: the ongoing fees, the late fees, the extract fees and those for the different forms that might apply and the cost to a business of the man-hours that are undertaken. So there are red tape and fees associated with this.

The system will eliminate frustrations for businesses that want to expand interstate, going from, say, Coolangatta in Queensland to Tweed Heads. No longer will they find a similar name already registered elsewhere. When they register in Queensland through online registration, the name will be, of course, registered nationally. There will only be one registration form to complete, not the multiple ones across the country. There will be one place to search for business names and there will be one place to pay your fee, being the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. When they register for an ABN they will register their business name and they will receive confirmation of the registration at the same time. It makes good sense to use the ASIC to manage and administer the business names register. It is responsible for the registration of companies, and I think that makes for a sensible outcome.

As I said, this is important for business and, of course, we are committed to lifting productivity. This will lift productivity in the workplace. It will enhance the quality of the regulatory framework and it will make a difference: it will reduce business costs and it will create an easier environment for businesses to compete interstate, globally and domestically as well.

I made the point at the beginning of this speech that this Labor government is a reforming government, as were the Hawke and Keating governments, in delivering microeconomic reform. We believe it is essential to have a strong commitment to a national regulatory system and to undertake reform of that. COAG has been the building block to do that, and I acknowledge the work that is done by the states and territories as well. The Department of Finance and Deregulation has estimated that 10 out of the 27 business regulation reforms under our agenda are worth about $3.5 billion a year for the economy and about $1.8 billion of this will flow directly to business. That is a big enhancement of our economy and a big enhancement of the productivity and the profitability of our businesses. The national partnership agreement is designed to enhance long-term growth and improve our workforce participation and improve overall labour mobility. We want to expand that and we want to make sure that we undertake to get rid of the inconsistencies.

I cannot let it go that those opposite want to whinge about jobs. We heard a diatribe from the member for Dunkley about jobs and business operations. At the height of the global financial crisis those opposite did not even provide the necessary support for nation building to support jobs, as this reform will undertake, by creating greater business productivity. We have this mindless mantra of economic malarkey from those opposite, on these issues, talking the economy down. It is a bit rich—this is the mob with the $70 billion black hole. What we have from those opposite on this, and you heard it from the member for Dunkley in his speech today, is mindless economic recklessness and irresponsibility when it comes to the economy. I am starting to think that those opposite are not just mindless and irresponsible but also economic vandals.

The opposition's economic policies depend on which way the wind is blowing. You heard the vacillation from the member for Dunkley in his speech on this bill. One minute he was supporting what we had said and the next minute he was criticising us about the process we are undertaking on this bill. So those opposite have no plans and when it comes to these economic reforms there is nothing they can say. They really are hopeless, hapless and helpless on this stuff. They did not do it when they were in government and they are criticising us for trying to do it now.

They come with this nonsense about independent contractors. Independent Contractors Australia, which represents about two million self-employed businesses, had this to say about the legislation and the government's efforts and I think the member for Dunkley should have a good listen:

This is what red tape-cutting is about. It’s the boring and tedious side of government, but it’s this sort of commonsense reform that makes for better business. We encourage the government to continue this type of effort.

That is what the mob opposite did not say about this bill. They tried to invoke Independent Contractors Australia to say that we are not in favour of small business, but Independent Contractors Australia supports us on this legislation. We on this side know that independent contractors are an important part of the economy because small business is an important part of our economy. There are about four million small businesses across the country and they employ people. They export goods and services and they employ people—including people in my electorate.

This legislation is important, like consumer credit, the Australian Consumer Law and the regulatory reform we are undertaking across the length and breadth of the country. Everything we are doing here is about supporting small business and making sure it is profitable because small business employs people. Cooperative relationships between labour and capital are important for small business. We understand that. We understand that is what drives productivity. We understand that when labour and business works together in the small business environment that is when business becomes more profitable. That is when wages rise, that is when business becomes more productive, that is when productivity rises, that is when the economy improves, that is when communities prosper and that is when the country develops wealth.

Those opposite do not understand that. They do not understand that partnership and cooperation is important. They only understand a monetarist Friedman style market economy, which does not do anything. The economy is about partnerships and we support this legislation. (Time expired)

Dan Tehan (Wannon, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to add my voice to this series of bills, the Business Names Registration Bill 2011, the Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011 and the Business Names Registration (Fees) Bill 2011. I hope the member for Blair never organises a surprise birthday party for me because there was not much of a surprise in anything he had to say.

This bill is supported by the coalition. Once again, we have seen good cooperation from the coalition and now by the current government in bringing these bills into this place and into fruition. This was a process which started in 2006. It was the result of the Regulation Taskforce, a task force on reducing regulatory burden on business, and was released on 7 April 2006. It followed a lot of consultation, especially by the Office of Small Business as it was then in 2006. It followed this process right the way through to where we are now. I commend all the people who have worked in that office from 2006 to today for the wonderful work that they do, in particular in bringing this bill to fruition, because it is a good bill and it will help reduce regulation for small business in Australia.

I want to go a tiny bit into the detail of the bill. As the intergovernmental agreement states:

A. The parties agree to establish a national system for business name registration to be implemented by Commonwealth legislation, supported by State text‐based referrals of certain matters to the Commonwealth Parliament, in accordance with paragraph 51(xxxvii) of the Commonwealth Constitution.

B. The Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory and the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory have legislative powers in relation to business names and the registration of business names under Commonwealth self‐government legislation, and therefore the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory are parties to this agreement, but, having regard to paragraph 51(xxxvii) and section 122 of the Commonwealth Constitution, they will not make a referral.

C. The Commonwealth will introduce legislation to establish a national system for the registration of business names.

As the chief of staff for the former Minister for Small Business and Tourism, I played a very small part in helping this reform get off the ground. I acknowledge the former Minister for Small Business and Tourism, Fran Bailey, who also drove this, and the small business adviser with responsibility in the minister's office at the time, Kate Davies.

It is a good reform. One has only to look at the comparison of fees in state jurisdictions for registering a business name. For instance, in the ACT it is $151; in Queensland it is $255; and in Victoria it is $85.50. For us now to have a uniform rate is a very good start, as is making sure that we have a national register. The way that it will be implemented I think also shows that the government and, before it, the coalition in framing the way these bills have been set up have done it in a very common-sense and sensible way. Where there are business names that will coincide, businesses are able to list the state they come from so that we will not get a lot of discussion, a lot of debate, over whether a business in Queensland with the same name as one in Victoria will then have to go through all sorts of issues as to who can keep that name and who cannot. We also have the situation now where, for every new business that is registered, that name becomes unique. That is a very good outcome. I commend everyone who has been involved.

There will of course be some teething problems. The member for Dunkley has mentioned the issue of independent contractors. I think he is right to note that issue. The former shadow minister for small business, Craig Emerson, before the 2007 election, gave ironclad guarantees to the independent contractor segment of our business community. I do not think that what we have seen since then has honoured those guarantees that he gave. It would be a terrible shame if this reform were used against them, and that is something that we here on this side will be watching.

Other aspects of the bill are that to trade under a business name an entity will be required to register and include the business name in written communications relating to the commercial dealings of the business. An ABN will also need to be displayed on a smaller number of documents, consistent with the ACN for incorporated entities under the Corporations Act. So there is a very sensible approach to the registering of a business name.

This will be important for my electorate of Wannon because we have a lot of small businesses in the electorate. The total of small businesses—that is, people who employ one to 19 employees—in my electorate is 13,376. Ninety-seven per cent of all businesses in Wannon are small businesses. As you go around especially regional and rural Australia, it becomes apparent how important small business communities are to these sectors. That is why we have to do everything we can to reduce regulation on these small businesses. This is a good bill because it does that. Unfortunately, in 2007 we also saw a commitment by the government of a one in, one out rule when it came to regulation. Sadly, we have not seen that commitment honoured and, at the moment, 220 regulations are being introduced for every one that has been taken out. That is adding to the burden on small business in my electorate and across Australia, which is a shame. But I commend this bill because it is 'one regulation in,' which will help reduce regulation, unlike what small business will be facing, especially when it comes to the carbon tax—and it looks as though we will see the legislation on that this week.

We have 6,028 small businesses in my community which are in the agricultural sector, 358 in the manufacturing sector, 820 in the retail sector and 599 in the transport sector. It is important that we do all we can for these small businesses in reducing the regulation burden. I hope that we will see more bills from the government along these lines, which are actually reducing regulation. It does not seem that we are seeing proper scrutiny of the bills with regard to their regulatory impact. In fact, some of the major bills which have been presented in this parliament are not having a regulatory impact statement conducted on them and I think that is a shame. Since 2007 we have lost over 300,000 jobs in the small business sector. Every regulatory burden that is added will increase the number of job losses in that sector. It makes it so hard for small business to operate if they have a regulatory burden around their neck. We have to do everything we can to ensure that they operate in an environment which encourages them to employ and hire people—whether as casual or full-time employees—and to expand and grow their businesses. What we are currently hearing from small business, especially in my electorate, is that they do not want to expand or grow at the moment because the burdens of doing so are so great.

Hopefully, we will see more action on this, more use of regulatory impact statements and regulations removed from small business. It gives me no joy to mention that, since 2007, over 12,000 regulations have been introduced and only 58 repealed. Sadly, that makes a bit of a mockery of this one in, one out promise.

On our side, our record in government clearly demonstrates that we were committed to growth in the small business sector and committed to easing the regulatory burden when it came to the workplace and to taxation and superannuation. We were committed to reducing regulation for small business. At the last election the coalition committed to reducing the regulatory cost to all businesses by at least $1 billion a year and not changing current laws relating to the treatment of personal services income, which is obviously so crucial to the independent contractors segment.

Practical examples of the coalition reducing the red-tape burden are highlighted by giving small businesses the option to remit the compulsory superannuation payments, made on behalf of workers, directly to the ATO. That is a very good, commonsense approach to helping small businesses reduce the regulatory burden. The coalition also recognised for small business men and women that less paperwork means higher profits, boosted sales and more time with the family. We were also looking at doing other things to help them, especially helping them create more paperless businesses so that they could operate their businesses and get on with what they do well, which is earning income, growing their businesses and employing people. I commend this bill. I think it is a bill which, if implemented correctly, will reduce red tape, allowing us to have a national registration system. It means that small businesses can freely operate, as they grow, between states, and that is a good move. They do not, as they expand, have to go to state-by-state seeking to register their business. So this is a good move. I would like to once again commend the Office of Small Business. This bill started there in 2006. I would also like to commend the people involved with the report in 2006, which suggested that this was a way forward. This is good, commonsense reform for small business. It reduces the regulatory burden. I hope that we will see a lot more of it and I hope, in particular, we will see a lot more of it for the 14,184 businesses in Wannon.

There is no question at the moment that the retail sector is suffering and, if it were not for the strong growth in agriculture at the moment that is propping up the retail sector in many of the smaller towns, we would be facing a more difficult time in my electorate. Manufacturing is also struggling at the moment. We need to see rules and regulations put in place that will support small businesses in those areas. Transport, fortunately with the dairy produce, the grain, and the timber, which is being transported in my electorate at the moment, is doing reasonably well at the moment. But what the transport sector does not need is extra burdens added to it and, sadly, the carbon tax will do that to the transport sector, especially with the impact that it is going to have on fuel when that is implemented in a couple of years time. That is going to have a detrimental impact on the transport sector, many of whom are single operators in my electorate and do a great job. I commend this bill to the House. I thank all those who helped to bring it to this chamber for us to debate. A lot of hard work has got this bill where it is. Those people who played their part deserve to be commended.

Kirsten Livermore (Capricornia, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank the member for Wannon. He showed great restraint.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As a former small business owner I am absolutely delighted today to be able to support the Business Names Registration Bill 2011 and the other associated bills. Over a century ago the colonies that made up this country agreed to join in one federation. There were many reasons for this, but chief amongst them was the need to streamline and make commerce easier between the states and to ensure that businesses from one state were not unduly prevented from trading in another state. It is for this reason that I continue to be amazed that after over a century of Federation we are yet to achieve one national economy and that businesses are discouraged from engaging in trade between the states. In so many ways we continue to operate eight different economies with their own rules and regulations. They are often more at odds with one another than in cohesion with one another.

As the Minister for Infrastructure and Transport noted in the Canberra Times earlier this year, it is 110 years since Federation and Australia is now one of the most prosperous and stable nations on earth, yet if we look at the statute books of the states and territories on some issues it is as if federation is as elusive as it was for Henry Parkes. In his speech to the Committee for Economic Development earlier this year that commemorated their 50th birthday, the minister also spoke about the work he is doing trying to harmonise and streamline infrastructure in this country. It is a massive reform program, and he spoke then about the draft national freight strategy that had been out for consultation and also the progress that had been made in the creation of a single national regulator in maritime, heavy vehicle and rail safety.

What struck me in this speech was the fact that he mentioned that there were currently governance arrangements set by 23 regulators with inconsistencies across state borders that create confusion, excessive red tape and productivity losses. The thing that struck me most was the example of the hay bale. He also mentioned in question time just recently the issues that hay bale producers in the country's south-east have to endure because of the quirkiness and the legacies of pre-Federation arrangements. Trucks in Victoria are allowed to carry more bales across their width than they can in New South Wales. How that continues to exist after all this time I do not know. It is 110 years on and we have still got differences in hay bale weights that we can carry across borders. It is absolutely extraordinary.

The reform that we are talking about today, like so many of the reforms that Labor is introducing, is very welcome and very overdue. In a globalised world, with access to modern communications and transportation technologies, the notion that businesses should forsake the opportunity of engaging in business across state lines due to the prohibitive costs of business registration names is truly bizarre. I cannot possibly see why the states and territories would maintain their own different business registration practices. I have been there myself—in the ACT I registered and paid I think $130. I got the registration for five years and I think it is $70 in another state and you get it for three years. It is completely ludicrous, and small businesses do not want a wall full of business registration names just to make them feel important. It is all just work that we do not need to do.

We need to operate as one national economy. I think this issue is a very clear-cut case of the need for the Commonwealth to take some power from the states in order to advance the national interest. If we are to be committed to the free market as a basic driver of economic life and growth, as this government is, then it is a duty incumbent on us to examine critically the obstacles to the operation of a free market that may have arisen historically. Hay bales are one example; business registration names are another. Part of the unfinished business of Federation is the removal of obstacles that make life harder for businesses. It is also our duty to make it less difficult for businesses to enter into commercial life and, most importantly, expand, prosper and become more productive.

As I mentioned, as a former owner of a small business and a sole trader, I know full well that it is hard enough to operate your business and maintain your records without the need to engage in repetitive and redundant regulatory requirements. I believe this represents the very worst of red tape. This is the kind of issue that strikes a chord with me as I believe these regulatory requirements represent the everyday obstacles at a microlevel to the smooth operation of the market. We are talking at the microlevel here, but it is just another barrier to being productive, getting out there and being successful in business—making money and employing people.

This reform, like many other regulatory reforms of this government, represents the hard slog of a good economic reform agenda. It may not be the large-scale reforms that catch our attention but it is nonetheless an essential building block. Therefore, this bill represents a small but important piece of the great mosaic of economic reform in which this government is engaged.

At present, a business operating in every state and territory faces a cost of more than $1,000 to register a business name for three years. This is simply the cost of registering and it does not represent the opportunity costs associated with getting across the various regulatory practices and forms associated with eight different sets of regulation. There are opportunity costs because people quite often forget that, when you are running around town signing up for business registration names, paying your $130 and getting your little business thing framed, time is money in business. Time spent not marketing yourself, not doing administration and not doing your core business—the business that you were set up to do—is wasted time. As I mentioned before, it is unproductive time. It does not enhance in any way the success of the business. It is just dead time, and it impacts on the nation's productivity.

This is a massive cost and represents a deterrent to businesses that may wish to expand to other states. If you have to fly down to Melbourne or send down to Melbourne, pay your money and go in and fill out the form there, it is just a complete nonsense. It is a deterrent to expansion, a drag on productivity, a drag on the future growth of business and a drag on the prosperity of the economy.

This kind of regulatory burden is one of the reasons that it has long been part of this government's reform agenda to take a look at the regulations that exist and, where necessary and appropriate, reduce or eliminate them. A big part of this reform agenda has been to work with the states and territories on realising the idea of Federation and to have one national economy. This cooperative approach, led by COAG, will drive this economy forward into the future and ensure Australian businesses can maximise their commercial opportunities, increase their productivity and not be weighed down by redundant and repetitive regulatory frameworks.

The legislation before us today is another part of this cooperative reform agenda. It was agreed by COAG in July 2008 that all states and territories and the Commonwealth would work towards one national scheme for the registration of business names. Finally, we have got it. In July 2009, COAG signed an intergovernmental agreement, and the states agreed to refer their powers on business names registration to the Commonwealth. This legislation is the culmination of that agreement and will develop a seamless national business name registration system that will include online registration for business names and Australian business numbers, to be operated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

This change will mean that, instead of the thousands of dollars currently charged to business for operating nationwide, they will now be required to pay just one fee, in the order of $70, for a three-year registration of their name. It is a significant saving, both in the direct cost of registration and in the time and opportunity costs required by the current fragmented state based system. As I mentioned, time is money in business, and running around doing this sort of thing is dead time. This change is not only going to make it easier for businesses but it will make it easier for consumers to quickly and accurately identify the entity behind the business name. It is proposed that, with continued cooperation, this new system will be in place by May next year.

This kind of legislation may not appear on its surface to be of great importance to the affairs of the nation, but for a small business owner it is very important. Certainly it does not attract the media or the public spotlight, but I can assure this House that it is very important for that great engine of the economy that is small businesses and microbusinesses. By ensuring that these everyday mundane tasks are made easier and cheaper, we can ensure that business is not held back by the burden of unnecessary regulatory duplication and can maximise its outputs, improve its productivity and improve the economy as a result.

I strongly support the measures in this legislation and encourage the government to continue its great reforms in making sure that the vision of one national economic framework dreamt about so long ago at Federation is finally made possible.

Bob Baldwin (Paterson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Tourism) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Business Names Registration Bill 2011, the Business Names Registration (Fees) Bill 2011 and the Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011. The coalition supports this legislative change. Why do we support it? Because the coalition identified, during 2006, that the burden of having to register a business in each of the states that its operations go through was red tape that was just not required. Stakeholder consultations were undertaken between September and October 2006 under the coalition government, market testing was completed in October 2006 and a discussion paper was released to accompany consultations with industry associations between September and October 2007. On 3 July 2008, COAG agreed to develop a single national system for registering and regulating businesses. This has been identified as one of 27 regulatory reforms that form part of the National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy.

The second issue is not just having to register businesses in each state but, as other colleagues in this House have raised, the cost and the differences of costs in each state. What is proposed is a three-year national registration fee of $70 or a renewal fee of $70. But if you were to register your business in the ACT it would be $151; in New South Wales it would be another $160; in Victoria, another $85.50; in Queensland, $255.60; in South Australia, $159; in Tasmania, $140; in the Northern Territory, $66; and in Western Australia, $90. When it comes to renew, as I said, the national fee would be $70. But, under the current regime, to renew it would be $127 in the ACT; $115 in New South Wales; $60.10 in Victoria; $206.85 in Queensland; $128 in South Australia; $140 in Tasmania; $56 in the Northern Territory; and $75 in Western Australia.

Today more and more businesses are conducting business events across borders, particularly with the advent of internet and e-trading. It is important that business owners have their business registered and have an ABN. There is a requirement to publish your ABN on a variety of documents, and that will not change. In fact, it will need to be included on certain documents lodged with ASIC, on a statement of account including invoices, on receipts, on an order for goods or services, on a cheque, on a promissory note or bill of exchange, or on an offer to provide goods or services rather than an invitation to treat. I see this, and the coalition sees this, as a plus for business, particularly small business.

In my shadow portfolio of tourism and regional development, but primarily tourism, the number of people in small business, medium business and large business is high. A microbusiness employs one to four people; a small business employs five to 19 people; a medium business employs 20 to 199 people and a large business employs 200 or more people. In June 2007, in the statistics from the ABS, in the microbusiness category there were 26,788 businesses, in the small category there were 20,358 businesses; in medium there were 8,973, and in large there were 522—a total of 56,631. There were additional businesses called non-employing businesses, of which there were 61,398—a total of 118,029 businesses. Those are total tourism characteristics. The numbers amplify when we start to look at those that are tourism connected, tourism related and even non tourism related. When you get the mixture of total tourism related and non tourism related industries, there are a total of 2,011,902 businesses. So the cost savings will be massive. It has been put that the national Australian Business Licence Information Service and the Australian business account will provide benefits of some $1.5 billion over eight years to business, governments and consumers.

Quite regularly I am contacted in my office by constituents who are trying to identify a business. Given the advent of things such as the pink batts and other various schemes, a lot of contractors move from state to state to pick up opportunities that are there. If those consumers have issues and they try to track the person to identify who the operators were, if there is no ABN or the ABN is registered in another state but not clearly identified, it makes it somewhat harder for those people to seek recovery action. The coalition support this legislation because we believe in reducing the red tape burden upon business in general but, in particular, on small business. As I said, the tourism industry has a large number of small businesses and the costs and impacts are massive. To have to stump up around a thousand dollars over three years is quite a considerable cost impact on those businesses.

There is an issue that will arise. For example, if John's Diving Services is registered in New South Wales and there is a John's Diving Services registered in Victoria and another one in Queensland, whilst all three may have a different ABN, how will people be able to identify him? One of the things put forward by ASIC is that they will insert a distinguishing mark or expression on the register, and the identifiers may be John's Diving Services, Port Stephens; John's Diving Services, Hervey Bay; or John's Diving Services, Port Melbourne. There is no restriction on someone registering a business name which is their own name. If we are looking at John Smith, plumber, I can imagine how many John Smiths are actually plumbers and who are trading by that name. So I think this is a positive move. I am glad that the states have agreed to forgo a level of revenue which would be quite substantial to their bottom line. But, as I say, when we look at reducing the red tape and the regulatory burden on business, it will have a positive effect.

I say to the government that there are also a number of other regulatory burdens placed upon small businesses that need to be addressed urgently. Small business is suffering very much. It is incumbent on a government that declares that it supports workers, for workers can only ever be employed by employers, to take a positive and proactive step to address further regulatory concerns held by business, and it needs to do it as a matter of urgency. Given that the coalition support the bill, there is not much point in taking up more time in the debate, but I did want to highlight the number of people who are involved in small business, in particular those who are involved in the tourism industry. We support the legislation.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I agree with some of the things that the member for Paterson had to say, particularly on the burden of regulation on small business. I know, when we first came to government in 2007, one of the matters we considered quite urgent, and are working on quite hard currently, was a national, seamless economy that would start to take away some of the duplication of regulation across the states. In this bill, we are dealing with something that should be simple, the registration of a business name, and which currently takes place across each state separately. It is not an easy thing if you are a business that works across all the states; but it applies equally to the registration of medical practitioners, workers compensation, the curriculum in our schools—you name it. The history of Australia, with six states and a Commonwealth government without full constitutional capacity to regulate in those areas, has created a whole range of areas where people do more work than they need to because of the structures that we have.

This package of three bills, the Business Names Registration Bill 2011, the Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011 and the Business Names Registration (Fees) Bill 2011, creates a national business names registration system—in 2011, after more than 100 years. The purpose of this scheme is to ensure that businesses not operating under their own entity can register their business names and details on a national register so that those who wish to engage with them can identify the entities behind the business names as well as their contact details. The national registration scheme will also remove the inconvenience experienced and compliance costs incurred in the current situation, where business names are registered across the various states and territories, each with its own business names registration scheme. Currently, each state and territory operates its own business names scheme. The creation of a national register removes the inconvenience and compliance cost caused by the registration across the various states. At present, for example, a business operating in every state and territory faces the cost of more than $1,000 to register a business name for three years. That is just the financial cost; it does not include the cost of the effort, keeping track and remembering to renew every three years. Under the national registration scheme, businesses will only pay one fee, which will be in the order of $70, to register for three years. An optional $30 fee will apply for a one-year registration.

This reform proposal is one of 27 regulatory reforms forming part of the National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy. When combined with a number of other related initiatives such as the national Australian Business Licence and Information Service and the Australian business account, it is estimated to provide benefits of $1.5 billion over eight years to business, government and consumers and will go a long way to removing a lot of regulatory burden, which the member for Paterson was talking about earlier.

The Seamless Economy reforms will make it easier for Australian businesses to operate with a range of national or regulatory frameworks in diverse areas such as consumer credit, consumer policy, trustee corporations regulation, trade measurement and health workforce registration. These reforms will make a real difference for business. For example, in the standard business reporting which commenced on 1 July 2010, instead of filling in a range of forms through multiple online and paper based state, territory and Commonwealth systems, businesses are now able to quickly and efficiently electronically prepare and lodge business information using a single system.

There have been reforms to occupational health and safety laws which will make it easier for businesses and workers operating across state borders to comply with work, health and safety requirements, as these requirements will be the same regardless of how many states and territories they operate in. This reform is expected to return around $180 million to business each year.

The national trade-licensing system will enable tradespeople to obtain a single licence which will enable them to practise their trade in any Australian state or territory. This will enhance labour mobility and boost productivity by making it easier for tradespeople to work in other jurisdictions and for employers to hire interstate staff to address local skill shortages.

Consumer policy and product safety reforms which commenced on 1 January 2011 are providing improved protections for consumers and reducing costs to business. The ACL replaces at least 20 different and overlapping Commonwealth, state and territory laws and is estimated to benefit the Australian economy by $1.5 billion to $4.5 billion in each year.

The health professionals reform commenced on 1 July 2010. Health professionals including nurses, midwives, medical practitioners and dentists now need only to obtain a single registration to work anywhere in Australia. This reform has cut red tape for health professionals and businesses that employ them and will reduce costs and contribute to the development of a mobile and responsive health workforce.

Consumer credit reform, of which phase 1 is now operational, established a national regulatory framework for consumer protection regulation for mortgage broking, margin lending and non-deposit-taking institutions on 1 July last year.

From next year, a national construction code that consolidates building and plumbing regulations will be in place. The code is expected to cut costs for the building and construction sector, as they will no longer have to deal with different requirements in different building and plumbing jurisdictions. This reform is estimated to deliver benefits to the industry of at least $460 million each year.

So this reform on business names registration is in very good company when it comes to building a national seamless economy. The total package will, along with subordinate legislation, create a national business names registration system. Existing businesses will not need to do anything when the new national business names service commences. Their existing state and territory business name registrations will automatically be transferred into the new national business name register. Where there are identical business names currently registered in different jurisdictions—and no doubt that is the case—the proposed arrangements under the legislation will not require existing businesses to spend money on reissuing stationery or replacing signage. These businesses will be able to keep their existing business name; however, a distinguishing mark will be placed on the business name register allowing specific businesses operating in different jurisdictions to be identified.

The Business Names Registration (Fees) Bill 2011 defines the term 'chargeable matters' in the context of the registration of business names and imposes a fee for chargeable matters related to the registration or renewal of a business name as part of the national business names registration system. At present the cost of registering a business name differs between the states and territories. A business may also be required to register a business name in two or more states depending on the number of states that the business operates in. The Business Names Registration Bill and its cognate bills, through a national system, will make it no longer necessary to register a business name in each state and territory. I commend the bill to the House. It is a very important part of our move towards a national seamless economy and it will make significant reductions in the regulation of small businesses around the country.

Paul Neville (Hinkler, National Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to speak on the Business Names Registration Bill 2011 along with the associated bills before us today. The core bill aims to establish a national business names registration system for both ABNs and business names and thereby simplify the registration process for businesses and provide clarity for customers dealing with those businesses. As it stands, the states and territories operate their own business name registration regimes and these proposed changes mean that businesses which operate across Australia will have to register with only one authority, not separate authorities in each of the eight jurisdictions.

These reforms were first started under the former coalition government, which saw a clear need for regulatory change and for red-tape reduction in the area of business name registration. Throughout 2006 and 2007, background work was done on improving the regime, including stakeholder consultation and the production of a discussion paper for industry associations. It was not until mid-2008 that COAG agreed to develop a single national system for registration and regulation of business names. It is to be hoped that these new measures will reduce compliance costs for businesses and provide certainty as to the identify of proprietors. I will have a bit to say about that later because I think the Business Names Registration Bill is deficient in one field. This is not the coalition's view I might add; this is my personal view and I will outline that in a minute.

Clearly, there has been a need to bring all of this into line. A quick study of different fees and regulations associated with registering a business name in different states gives you a strange and unbalanced outlook. Currently, to register a business name for three years can vary from $66, in the Northern Territory, to more than $255, in Queensland. I might add that no other state or territory comes anywhere near Queensland in terms of slugging entrepreneurs looking to establish a business. The closest cost is that of New South Wales, $160. So that is $160 as against $255.

Similarly, the cost of renewing business registration varies widely across Australia. Again Queensland's stands out as the most expensive. For a business which has a presence in a number of states and territories, the costs can mount up very quickly in some cases to more than a thousand dollars over the first three years. When reregistration comes along a similar effect applies. As other speakers have said, it is anticipated that the introduction of a national scheme will bring the cost of original registrations and renewals down to $70, an enormous saving with, hopefully, enormous simplicity in all jurisdictions. So that is one benefit expected from the legislation. One of the other stated goals of the legislation is to drive productivity. But there is one aspect that I hope the minister is mindful of, which is the added complexity that inevitably arises when trying to streamline state and Commonwealth regulations. The last thing business needs at this time is to have an operating environment which is unnecessarily bureaucratic and overly complicated, which is what we have seen with the establishment of the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency.

I would like to do a brief parallel with this organisation. The ideals behind the registration of AHPRA were fair enough, in fact they were quite sound. Yet in practice the actual operation of the agency has not been covered in glory, as I am sure members who have been fighting red tape with doctors will readily attest. I think most members would be aware of the difficulties health practitioners faced when dealing with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency in trying to have themselves reregistered as health practitioners. I personally had GPs contact me absolutely frustrated by the delays, lack of response and lack of communication that they experienced when dealing with AHPRA. It is a scenario which needs to be remedied as quickly as possible. This is a scenario that I do not want to see repeated in some failed effort to streamline and simplify name registrations. I hope the minister will take note of that.

I also question whether the bills go far enough in ruling out an anomaly I referred earlier that we have at present whereby registering a business name does not prevent someone using the name for their own internet enterprise. I cite one example from Bundaberg last year where a florist business contacted my office to find out what their legal rights were in terms of an internet domain name. At that stage the business had a generic type name and its website address finished with .com.au as many of them do. But when people googled the generic name searching for the florist the first web link that appeared contained the generic name and concluded with .net.au—the point being that the domain name was the interloper. This is where it gets a bit unusual. When you clicked on the web link it directed the customers to a separate website which was operated by a business with a totally different name. In other words by using a phony domain name they were able to throw customers through the internet from a legitimate business that had been operating in the town for many years over to another business.

I took this matter up with the Queensland Office of Fair Trading to find out what rights the business owners had in terms of protecting their name and their online presence. To my surprise I was informed that because the name consisted of descriptive words the business operator did not 'have the right to appropriate to themselves the sole rights of use of the descriptive terms,' despite the fact that they had been operating as that business and that the domain name had not existed previously. My attention was drawn to a legal case in the Federal Court of Australia in which the following was stated:

So long as descriptive words are used by two traders as part of their respective trade names, it is possible that some members of the public will be confused whatever the differentiating words may be. The risk of confusion must be accepted, to do otherwise is to give to one who appropriates to himself descriptive words an unfair monopoly in those words and might even deter others from pursuing the occupation which the words describe.

I understand the reasoning behind that but you could have got to a better conclusion by having a look at how long the original business, the registered name business, had been there and when someone had appropriated the domain name. I have not used the actual names in this speech. To be fair to both the parties involved I do not want to drag it into the parliament as a dogfight, but to me it is a matter of ethics and I would recommend to the minister that they have another look at this.

To emphasise how this, taken to its ridiculous ends, might be used, bearing in mind you will know I come from Bundaberg, what say I bought a still—I was not much good at home-brewed beer but let us say I bought a still, as some people do, and decided to make spirits. I duly applied to the Commonwealth for a spirits licence and said I had paid the appropriate charges. Then I decided to call myself Bundaberg Rum. Do you think we would approve of that? Of course we would not, and I would have no right to that name. So I think sometimes just because the name is descriptive, if it has been used for many years by one firm as a registered name it should be protected from a domain interloper.

If we are establishing a database of names, we need to iron out anomalies like this whereby people can exploit an internet domain address to, in some cases, garner trade from a long-established and well-known enterprise. As people order more goods and services in the online regime as it expands, and we all know it is a growing commercial trend—retailers are complaining like crazy about it—and people buy through the internet, the regime needs to have provision to prevent what amounts to stealing of a company's identity through parallel internet online presence. If you have registered a domain name and you have established that and then someone under this legislation wants to garner your domain name by naming a business in the same name, that is specifically prevented in the legislation. I think that is fair enough. What I cannot understand is that when the case is reversed and the interloper is the identity establishing the domain name to garner the identity of the registered name, the legislation is silent.

Some say that may have implications to go into another ministry and some subordinate legislation in another department. I think that is quite weak. If you are going to have one which will apply in one way across the board it should apply back the other way. The fact that the web link of the interloper's garnered domain name often takes you to a website of a business of a completely different name indicates the intention to mislead. In a case I know of in Bundaberg, the business has a name—if you like, Bread Bakery—and someone goes and registers the domain name Bread Bakery to try to get Bread Bakery's business. But when you go to the domain name of Bread Bakery it flicks to Brown's Scones and Baked Products. In other words, the device is put in there purely to mislead the customer and take that customer to a separate site. I do not know if it is too late for amendments to this legislation but I think it is a gaping, cavernous hole in what is otherwise very good legislation.

The member for Parramatta was describing how it will be possible to use the same name in several states if the names are well established over a period of time and that the registration authority will have a distinguishing mark put in those names so that there is no confusion. If you can go to that much trouble to establish this new legislation, then it seems to me it would not have been a country mile further to go—in fact, it would have been only a few yards further to go—to clear up this abuse of domain names. Yes, you have cleared it up going one way: you have protected people with a domain name from having their business stolen by someone just adopting that name for their business. But you did not do the reverse procedure.

I support the legislation. The bill has a lot of potential. I understand the intentions behind it. But I think a lot of vigilance will be required as we implement the legislation, for two reasons, as I said: firstly, to make sure we escape bureaucracy as it is introduced; and, secondly, to try to close up some of these loopholes further down the track.

Peter Slipper (Fisher, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I think most of us would appreciate that small business is the engine room of the Australian economy and that a very large proportion of the employment in this country is generated by small business. That is why the best way to create more employment is to enable small businesses to operate efficiently, to grow and to focus on what small business does well—that is, operating small businesses rather than constantly filling out forms and dealing with red tape and bureaucracy.

I am pleased to be able to join in the debate on the Business Names Registration Bill 2011 and cognate bills currently before the House. These bills aim to ensure that the entities behind businesses can be identified, that the inconvenience and compliance cost of multiple registrations is avoided and that names that are undesirable, offensive or misleading are not registered. The bills will provide for easier and lower-cost registration of business names, which will encourage businesses to operate across borders and from state to state. I think it is important to recognise that, while we have a number of jurisdictions, we are one country and, when it is possible to achieve, we should aim for a national, cooperative approach. In this situation, instead of having to pay a separate business name registration fee for each state in which a business operates—which can cost up to $1,000 in combined registration fees for business—this bill enables just one registration on a national basis. It will bring the cost down to around $70 for a three-year registration. It is a massive change that will make things easier for all small businesses, as well as for large businesses, in terms of paperwork. It also means it will be a lot cheaper for the business entity to actually get on and do business and create jobs—which is, of course, to the benefit of the Australian economy.

The bill allows for the creation of a new national business names register to be operated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission—that is, ASIC. This new register will come with various guidelines to ensure that it is fair for all businesses.

The streamlining of the business name registration system is a helpful initiative and an important development, but it is vital that support for small business generally be maintained and be lifted to make sure that small business is able to power ahead and create jobs. Unfortunately, since the current government came to office, some 300,000 jobs have dissolved from the small business sector. This is regrettable. It has a flow-on effect to other parts of the community as the combined spending power of those workers is diminished. We cannot allow this important employment sector to be left to flounder, because of the implications for families and communities across the nation.

Recently, I was pleased to welcome the shadow minister for small business, the honourable member for Dunkley, to the Sunshine Coast. When he spoke to small business operators, he spoke from his own personal experience as a business owner with his wife and he was clearly determined to do all that he could to make things better for small-business owners across Australia. Digressing for a moment, his visit to the Sunshine Coast was much valued and worthwhile. It was a jam-packed itinerary. We were able to have a small business forum. He was able to do a business breakfast at Maleny. He was able to listen to various concerns from small business operators as well as to share ideas on how to make things better for this employment sector. He then visited Maleny Dairies, where we sampled some of the delightful gluten-free custard and yoghurts. Ross Hopper and David McKinney have developed a unique and special system of securing milk from local dairy farmers. They are able to pay them significantly more than the major contractors for their milk, securing the deals all with an old-fashioned handshake.

We also visited Maleny Cheese and then went on to Pipeline Surf Company at the Stockland shopping centre in Caloundra. We spoke about problems facing small business. The items such as those included in the legislation before the chamber today will make it so much easier for small business operators to operate in a cost-effective manner. I applaud the measures that are included in this bill.

We also visited Fink Engineering at Warana. They have been quietly doing their thing for some time, building and exporting hyperbaric treatment chambers. The latest one they have is nearing completion and due to be shipped to Montana in the United States of America. Interestingly, as an aside, the firm also built the largest hyperbaric chamber in the world, at 85 tonnes, which is now located at the Prince of Wales Hospital in Sydney. These chambers are built like high-tech hospital rooms with the capability to be pressurised to assist with a wide range of medical conditions from diabetes. The treatments can range from helping to improve circulation and revitalise dying tissue, often negating the need for amputation, through to treating whitetail spider bites. The chambers and the medical research have come a long way from the small cylindrical and uncomfortable chambers that treat only bends and sports injuries.

We also visited Advanced Aquarium Technologies. This is a revolutionary and awe-inspiring business that builds massive aquaria all around the world. The tour of their warehouse was quite daunting, as we were shown massive slabs of clear acrylic sheets and towering moulds. They have built world class aquaria in countries right around the world. The small business shadow minister also visited an IGA and spoke about the retail sector.

The bills currently before the House are important. They are incremental bills. They are bills that indicate that as a country we are operating more as an entity than as eight or nine jurisdictions. They indicate that as a community we are prepared to make it easier for business to operate in a cost-effective way. I am particularly pleased to see that there has been cooperation around the country in the introduction of these bills, which will improve outcomes for small business, which will encourage employment in this important sector and which, of course, will be to the long-term benefit of the Australian economy.

David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to thank all members for their contributions to this debate on the Business Names Registration Bill 2011, the Business Names Registration (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2011 and the Business Names Registration (Fees) Bill 2011. Australia is one economy, one market. Therefore, it is only appropriate that it should have regulatory frameworks that minimise fragmented and inconsistent regulation that makes it harder to do business across state and territory borders and adds to the compliance burden of business.

That is the purpose of the Council of Australian Governments' Seamless National Economy agenda, of which a national business names registration system is one of the key regulatory reforms. That is why this government is working with the states and territories to drive the Seamless National Economy agenda to ensure that we complete the transformation of Australia's regulatory landscape and bring it into the 21st century. Ultimately, such reform will lift productivity, keep our economy strong and create jobs.

The business names registration legislation package sets up a new national business names register to be operated by ASIC. Any entity carrying on a business in Australia using a name other than its own will be required to register with ASIC. The register will enable any party, be they a consumer or another business, to ascertain who the entity is behind a business name and provide them with the means to contact that entity. Under the new system, businesses will only need to complete a single online application and pay a single fee to register a business name nationally. This will mean for most businesses reduced registration costs and a simpler process, especially for businesses that trade in more than one state or territory. At present, a business operating and registering in every state and territory faces a cost of more than $1,000 to register a business name for three years. Under the national registration system, businesses will pay only one fee, which will be in the order of $70 to register for the three years. An optional $30 fee will apply for a one-year registration.

In most cases businesses that trade in just one state or territory will also benefit from this lower fee. For example, in my state of New South Wales, the three-year business name registration fee is $160 for new registrations and $115 for renewing registration. In Queensland, a three-year business name registration fee is $255.60 for new registrations and $206.85 for renewing registration. Given these cost savings for business, it is not surprising that the national business names registration system combined with a number of other related initiatives, such as the National Australian Business Licence and Information Service and the Australian Business Account, is estimated to provide benefits of $1.5 billion over eight years to business, government and consumers.

The Commonwealth has no power to regulate for business name registrations in Australia. Therefore, the establishment of a national business names registration system and the legislation which underpins it relies on a referral of constitutional powers from the states to the Commonwealth. The states therefore must enact referral legislation to give effect to the national registration system. States have agreed to pass referral legislation by March 2012 to enable data transfer to the national register to commence so that the system can be operational from the end of May 2012. Currently, referral legislation is before the parliaments of Tasmania and Queensland, with other states to progress their referral legislation in the coming months. I would like to express the government's appreciation for the hard work of all the Commonwealth, state and territory officials involved with the development of a national business names registration system. I would also like to thank all stakeholders who participated in the extensive consultation process involved in developing this legislation.

In closing, a national business names registration system is a long overdue reform. It is a sensible and practical reform which will deliver considerable benefits. Perhaps it can best be summarised by using the words of a small business organisation itself, in this case Independent Contractors Australia. I believe this quote was used by the member for Blair in his contribution to the debate a little earlier. In an email sent to their members after the introduction of this legislation in the Australian parliament, this is how they described a national business names registration system:

This is what red tape-cutting is about. It’s the boring and tedious side of government, but it’s this sort of commonsense reform that makes for better business.

And they are right. This is the sort of commonsense reform that makes for better business, and it is commonsense reform from this government, which is delivering. It is reflective of our firm commitment to supporting businesses and in particular small businesses.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.