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

I hope my motion spurs the government to greater activity in relation to the National Business Names Register. The motion urges the House to note that the National Business Names register has been in operation since 28 May 2012. It urges the House to note that the Gillard government has failed to act to fix implementation problems with the National Business Names Register, which has left the privacy of home based businesses exposed. It also urges the House to note that businesses have been waiting on hold for up to 45 minutes to progress to an operator when contacting the ASIC hotline about these business names. And, finally, the motion urges the House to note and bring to the government's attention the large number of people who have had problems with registering, renewing, paying for and transferring business names since the National Business Names Register started.

I have spoken on this topic a number of times before, but I hope my contribution is both gripping and persuasive. I did draw to the attention of the House back in September 2011 that this is a process that started under the former Howard government. It is a good idea that deserves the support of the parliament. My contention is not about the quality of the idea, but the quality of the implementation of the idea. And that has caused much frustration and hardship to small businesses right across our continent as they seek to complete the relatively simple transactions of registering, renewing or transferring a business name, something they have done quite comfortably and with a minimum of fuss through a number of different registers.

The issue with those multiple registers was that they were not well connected and, for businesses operating in multiple jurisdictions, you had quite a challenge in renewing multiple registrations across multiple states. This was something which this measure was aimed to address and it has gone some way towards doing that. But goodness, how hard can it be! It has proven to be very challenging and a source of great frustration for people who have contacted me or corresponded with my office.

On 17 August 2011 I was briefed by the then Minister for Small Business, Senator Sherry. I am not sure whether that was four small business ministers ago or three, but he was one of five in 15 months, and that has probably caused you great concern, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as it has me and the small business community. We had some specific issues raised with us by stakeholders, by small business organisations and in fact by some of the state and territory jurisdictions. We urged the government to make sure it understood that not all businesses are big businesses and that, for small business, the complexity of the system and the need to disclose their location of operation would be an enormous affront to, in particular, the many home based businesses, who had not been required to provide that level of detail before.

The small-business community—the home based businesses, the micro-businesses of Australia—was promised by the Labor government that its privacy would be protected. It did not happen. Those assurances turned out to be empty. They turned out to be something that could not be relied upon and this has caused great distress for the small-business community. They would go to register their names under the new system, knowing that under state based systems they were able to provide a post office box or something of that kind, something they were quite comfortable with and which facilitated the contact and disclosure that was being looked for. But no, they could not do that under the new system. It demanded they provide an address usable for the servicing of documentation, summons and the like—and for many that is their home. So that privacy issue was not satisfactorily addressed.

It still is not satisfactorily addressed today. It is one of a six issues I raised with the subsequent minister. I would like to thank the parliamentary secretary for facilitating that meeting with Mr Tanzer, the commissioner at ASIC who had responsibility for it. It was interesting. I think it was in September last year that we had that meeting. I was assured we would have some answers in a fortnight. Six months later we got some advice. Six months later we were told that there was some work going on to increase the capacity of the call centres, to deal with the extraordinary delays. There was some fudging on whether the system's changes, needed to protect the privacy issues, would be made.

We were told that it required more resources, policy variations and a change to systems. When we sought to find out whether those action steps had actually been taken, when this parliament considered the budget in detail for the department of industry that included the small-business budget, we could not get any answers. You know why not? The small-business minister did not bother turning up. The parliamentary secretary, who is very diligent ordinarily, did not turn up either. I had to ask Minister Combet, the minister for the carbon tax that has cruelled small business, what was going on with the business-names register. He did not have much of an idea. We got no comfort whatsoever that there is action being taken. I am optimistic that with Parliamentary Secretary Ripoll here today we might be able to get an update on whether the extra money that is being provided is going to increase the number of people at call centres and hopefully reduce the frustration that many in the small-business community are experiencing. That is what the budget paper says: we will have more money for more people at the call centres.

That is one part of the problem we raised with Mr Tanzer and one of the six issues we were supposed to have had resolved in a fortnight but which came back to us six months later. The question is whether those system changes have been made. I note there have been some changes in the way that business-transfer operations take place. There was a 28-day hiatus where a name was taken off the register and you just hoped and prayed no one pinched your name in the meantime. Now at least there will be multiple names registered against a business name, a vendor of a business and a purchaser of a business. I hope that will work, but we will find out and I am looking for some assurances from the parliamentary secretary that it will work.

The delays in calling the centre still seem to be a problem. It might be that we have not got to 1 July and we have not got those additional staff, but I am being very modest and conservative in a 45-minute wait. Many of the businesses that contact me say, 'Gee, I wish it were only 45 minutes; it's been much longer than that.' My message has been: this national scheme has to operate on west-coast time. If you are really stuck, ring after 5.30 on the east coast. Why? The centre has to operate in west-coast times. There is capability there after normal business hours on the east coast and that is probably a good time to call, but it should not be my job to give that kind of advice. The system should work and accommodate the traffic that it is experiencing.

Another area is the complexity in having your renewal processed. I have examples here where law firms have gone out of their minds. I am talking about legal practices with extraordinarily intelligent people incapable of navigating their way through this scheme, spending hours of staff time trying to get their names re-registered and renewed so that they can get a certificate of practice. I am encouraged by the fact that the registration fees might represent a net saving, but as we have to keep outlining time and time again to this government—that would not know a small business unless it organised a picket out in front of them—time is a scarce commodity for small business. They might pay a modest reduction in their fee, and that is to be encouraged, but they need to spend hours on the system on time they will never get back. That is extraordinarily expensive. That is why we have seen 22,000 new and amended regulations introduced by this government.

This was supposed to be an improvement in regulatory burden. It is actually operating the other way. That is why we have made some commitments about a reduction of a billion dollars in the cost of regulation. Why? It is not just the fee that matters; it is the time that is spent, the frustration and the inability to conclude what should ordinarily be a very straightforward transaction—that is, registering, transferring or renewing a business name. I have case studies after case studies. I have shared those with Mr Tanzer. I have shared those with the parliamentary secretary. All we are looking for with this motion is some action. The background has been impressive. The words have been reassuring. Where is the follow through? Where are we dealing with the issues of ambush marketing where business names with a geographic descriptor are being used to cut off business and to intervene in their trade? How are we dealing with people who cannot even register a name because of system problems—problems acknowledged by the government?

There were some stand-up issues with the technology that proved incapable of dealing with the demands placed on it. The advice provided to some small business was that there are 32,000 renewals to be processed and: 'We will get to you eventually. Keep trading even though we can't give you a validation of a renewal certificate.' It also relates to those call times: 'Best to call after hours on the east coast because it is geared up to work for west coast time.' That is kind of practical advice we should not have to provide because this should not be so complicated. It should be a net advantage to the small business community. It should respect and protect the home based businesses. But after the legislation that passed the other day, now they could get some boofhead come in and demand a meeting not in their staff room because they don't have one but at their dining room table. That is why they are concerned about their privacy. This is a good measure. I hope it is going to be executed better. I hope the parliamentary secretary will give us those assurances. I hope this motion does something to put a rocket under the government to get it right. (Time expired)

Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on this motion moved by the member for Dunkley. I think the only thing we agree on is acknowledging the start date of the system; everything after that is in dispute. The only thing he has got right is that we commence the register from 28 May last year. It has come into being as a result of an agreement between levels of government, states and territories, through our COAG commitment for a seamless national economy. Under the intergovernmental agreement that arose out of the 2008 COAG national partnership agreement, the states referred the necessary powers to the Commonwealth to enable us to establish the national system for the registration of business names. I completely reject the member for Dunkley's characterisation of the national register as being a failure, which he suggested in a media release mid last month. Sure, any new system has to find its feet, but it will get better and better over the course of time. There will be problems at the start of a scheme, but that does not necessarily mean that the entire system is judged by its early days. For instance, where a business is required to register in more than one jurisdiction, the register has reduced the cost. To register a business name in all eight states and territories, we have reduced the cost from $1,000 to $70. For a small business, that is nothing to be sneezed at. That is a significant reduction in those costs. It has also proven a much more convenient system for businesses than the paper based registration system.

The Australian Securities and Investments Commission operates the national register and has reported that since it commenced close to a third of business name registrations have occurred after business hours, reflecting the convenience of the new online service, particularly for small business. It allows them to focus on their core business instead of going through the process of these registrations. That certainly has the potential to benefit the more than 8,000 businesses that operate throughout the electorate of Chifley. ASIC, for example, has received over 300,000 applications for a business name since the national register commenced a little over a year ago. Since October last year, it has issued over 530,000 renewal notices to businesses whose registrations were due to expire on or after 28 May 2012. Although the vast majority of businesses have used the benefits of the new online national register without significant issue, admittedly there have been some that have experienced difficulties accessing the website, contacting ASIC and renewing business names.

These system constraints would, no doubt, have been the source of a great deal of frustration for people attempting to register their business names, but ASIC has taken steps to address those issues, particularly around congestion and call wait times. It is worth noting that they have added 150 phone lines in the call centre and have recruited additional staff to respond to those inquiries. Those measures have succeeded in dealing with the volume of calls, which has been much higher than initially forecast. That, in itself, is a reflection of the fact that this has been embraced so widely by small business. People have wanted to avail themselves of the service and it has been a lot more popular than people originally intended.

ASIC also reports that almost no customers are having their calls blocked at the exchange. Last week there was only one identified. This means that almost all business-name customers are having their calls queued and then answered. Average call times in February this year, for example, were reported to be around the 30-minute mark, but are now down to 5½ minutes. That is a significant reduction.

In last month's federal budget the government allocated $7.8 million to ASIC for further improvements to the client contact centre specifically to service business name registrations. Of that allocation, $1.6 million is earmarked for capital costs. So this will let ASIC upgrade its telephone infrastructure over the next two years, and that will help achieve a target of 60 per cent of calls answered in 300 seconds.

The member for Dunkley has raised concerns about the privacy of some small business owners, particularly those who operate businesses from home. Certainly, privacy concerns should always be taken absolutely seriously. The privacy issue arises from the online registration system not necessarily permitting the customer to use a post office box as a registered address of the business. I understand, from what I have seen, that since the issue first came to the issue of ASIC, they have worked closely with Treasury to examine the feasibility and the legal standing of a number of options to address the concerns of home based businesses, a lot more of which will be able to open up as the NBN rolls out and allows a lot more flexibility for businesses operating from premises at home.

I am advised that the Treasury and ASIC have now agreed upon a preferred option and that ASIC is developing the IT changes that are needed to roll out that solution. And while we wait for this measure to take effect ASIC has also undertaken to address concerns by allowing customers to change their address to a postal address, which is a good move. The interim measure will not occur automatically; rather, it will happen when the customer raises concerns with the call centre, which will allow them to make that choice. On top of this, ASIC will review its escalated complaints, where these concerns have previously been raised, and will invite businesses to change their address to a postal service.

This government's reform of business name registration was aimed squarely at making it easier for business to operate across the country. We were particularly concerned that this reform would reduce the regulatory burden of small business. I do not accept the member for Dunkley's assertion that only the coalition cares for small business. From day one this government has focused its tax reform agenda on assisting business, particularly small business. As a Labor government we are unapologetic about keeping people working and about supporting jobs. I certainly note for the chamber some of these small business-focused tax reforms—for instance increasing the small business instant asset write-off from $1,000 to $6,500. We also introduced accelerated initial deduction for motor vehicles costing $6,500 or more, and the government has announced its intention to introduce loss carry-back, allowing companies to carry-back up to $1 million worth of losses to get a refund on tax paid in the previous year.

It is particularly worth noting that—in an environment where businesses that might have an outward focus are affected by the strength of the Australian dollar—allowing businesses to restructure is an important measure. Lifting the tax-free threshold from $6,000 to $18,200 on 1 July last year benefited small businesses, particularly in terms of the people they employ.

I also note the government's support for small business advocacy. I am particularly proud of the fact—and I would like to have it recorded here—that we were able to support the Greater Western Sydney Business Enterprise Centre, who are providing services for businesses all over western Sydney. In particular I note the work of David Baumgarten and people in the BEC who are providing support for small businesses in the Chifley electorate. We were able to support them with over $200,000 of assistance which, funnily enough, was cut by the state government.

The state government of New South Wales, which professes concern for New South Wales small businesses, cut the funding available to this type of advisory and advocacy outfits, and we had to step in and provide the assistance. When this was brought forward to the then Minister for Small Business, Brendan O'Connor, he was able to ensure that we could provide funding support for small businesses in our area that want advice on the best way to start a small business, to grow a small business and to take a small business to the next level through a whole range of different strategies. I have seen some of the work on the ground through what he has achieved and certainly commend the BEC for their work.

An opposition member interjecting—

That is the type of practical assistance that is provided through this government at times where your coalition friends at the state level have not been entirely helpful, and it is worth pointing that out to the chamber.

Admittedly, with a system like this—a national system that is replacing state-based systems—there will be teething problems, there is no doubt about that. But when you see what has been done in terms of correcting them and, importantly, what has been done to reduce the cost on small business—as I said before, reducing the cost from $1,000 for registration to $70—this is something that small business welcomes. They welcome the reduction of the regulatory burden on them. This has been a positive move welcomed by a lot of small businesses, and will definitely be welcomed in the long term as well.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a great privilege in seconding this terrific motion from the member for Dunkley. It was great to have the member for Chifley then speak in favour of the concerns raised in this motion. I will follow from what the member for Dunkley said earlier that we have supported the direction of the national business name register.

The member for Dunkley is the shadow opposition spokesman on small business, and has been the same shadow opposition spokesman on small business for some time now. I think in his time as shadow small business spokesman he has had six Labor opponents, which I think reflects the abilities of the member for Dunkley. He has been highlighting this issue for some time. It has been operating now for over 12 months and I, like many of my colleagues, have had numerous complaints to my office about problems with the system. One, in particular, led me, after consulting with the shadow small business minister, to write to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer about this issue on 8 March this year, raising concerns of a constituent of mine, Mr Eric Newman, who has been running a small business on his property for many years. The South Australian government, to put this in context, recently decided to change a roadside numbering system in South Australia, and therefore he had—

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

It's their fault!

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Parliamentary Secretary says, 'It's their fault.' That is the first response that we have had from the Parliamentary Secretary, because the letter goes unanswered. It is good to see we have got an 'It's their fault' coming back to us!

But in any event, what the story is with the new national registration is that they will not allow Mr Newman to upgrade his postal address details with ASIC and remove the roadside mailbox and have a registered PO box instead. The decision was a result of the new rural property addressing system introduced by the state government. However, it goes to the ASIC rules that they are putting in place, which will not allow this to be registered. Of course it is just a bit of bureaucratic mindlessness, which is causing this small business person such challenges.

I expect the Parliamentary Secretary will write back sooner rather than later and explain that it has been fixed, because it would seem to me to be an easy issue to fix—to help this small business. It is like so many small businesses trying to make a go of it in an electorate like mine, a rural electorate, largely in small, home-based businesses, as the member for Dunkley said. They are an increasing trend. The Labor Party does not like them. They do not like them; they never have.

An honourable member interjecting—

That is why they have attacked the independent contractors legislation that the former government brought in. They do not like the fact that people can create their own opportunities. They much prefer them in the union collective. They much prefer them to be part of the pool of workers that can be accessed—

Mr Ripoll interjecting—

Parliamentary Secretary, I would have thought you would be looking to answer the letter I wrote you on 8 March, rather than interjecting.

An honourable member interjecting—

Six months? Wow. This is a very important motion because the Labor Party does not like small businesses. It is instinctively against—

Honourable members interjecting—

Mike Symon (Deakin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Order! The member for Mayo has the call and is entitled to be heard in silence.

Jamie Briggs (Mayo, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Scrutiny of Government Waste Committee) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

These vicious interjections that are trying to disrupt this discussion, which I thought was being held in quite warm good humour previously with the member for Chifley, might reflect the challenges those on the other side are facing internally at the moment.

This is a Labor Party and a Labor government that does not like small business. It much prefers a system where people who are trying to be entrepreneurial are forced to move into the workforce. Many mums returning to work after having children, our experience indicates, are trying to make a go of it but are now being exposed to the bureaucratic bungling of a Labor Party that does not care about them and does not want to encourage them. Not just on this issue but on so many other issues the Labor Party is making life harder, not easier.

The parliamentary secretary, when he rises to support this motion, should also explain to my constituent, Mr Newman, when he can expect a response to what are not insubstantial concerns. They are things that can be resolved very quickly and would make a lot of sense. This is a terrific motion. It deserves the support of the parliament and some attention from this government. (Time expired)

Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on this motion regarding the national business names register. If it were not for the fact that this motion is purely a political stunt, there may be some merit in it. The only genuine piece of goodwill towards small business in this motion is the date of commencement of operation, 28 May.

The national business names register, the register operated by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, is a single place for an online registration application to operate across all states and territories under companies' registered business names. At its core it is about cutting red tape and cutting costs. That is something that this government has been and continues to be committed to. The online business names system provides many benefits over a paper based system, as anyone would understand. For a start, it is a single system across all states and territories, bringing together eight disparate databases. It is also open 24 hours a day, seven days a week and provides a bit of modernity. It recognises the reality that, in this day and age, if you are going to cut costs, cut bureaucracy and cut red tape for small business, you have to start doing a few things online and making them consistent. You make sure you do it once and for less than it used to cost.

The reality is that a paper based system is no longer an adequate tool for small business, nor was the cost of more than $1,000 for registration adequate. It is now around $30 instead—a massive difference. Also, the fact that this has been one of the most popular of databases run by government or ASIC is phenomenal. Over 15 million free business name searches have been conducted. The majority of those, of course, are to discover whether a business name is presently being used. It is much simpler to do it once than to do it eight times across all states and territories, with the fact that you might get something wrong during that process. Something like 530,000 renewal notices have been issued, with incredible amounts of activity. This has been an absolute success.

But I will acknowledge that, in all of these matters, when you are bringing together a complicated set of state and territory disparate databases, there will be a few teething problems—and there have been, and we have responded to those. That has been the whole point. A problem is identified, government responds and government puts forward extra funds. So we as a government are playing our role to ensure that small business is being looked after and that we continue to provide a way to cut red tape, a way to reduce costs and a way to provide protection. That is something that the opposition have not talked about in this. Protecting people's business names is as important as their privacy. Their privacy is absolutely important.

The opposition would be happy to know that, from immediately being alerted to this issue, we began work with ASIC and with other departments to look at legal issues and rights. For a start, there was not one consistent rule across states and territories on the privacy matter that they raised about post office boxes. It is one way in some parts of the country and different in other parts of the country. We have worked to a consistent line of trying to bring forward the best possible way to deal with these issues, but it is not a simple case. There are some very important issues about protecting consumers as well as protecting business in the proper identification of people's registered addresses. That can be done through a third party—for example, a solicitor, an accountant or another third party. It does not necessarily have to be the address of where, for example, the home business is based. There are a range of areas around how this works, and that is currently being considered by government: the best way to make sure that we get this right for small business.

Essentially, the national register is about having a single database—one place where you can go at any time of day or night, when it suits you as a small-business owner, not being told by some state department that you have to turn up between the hours of nine and five, which happens to be when you are trying to do your job as a small-business owner. It protects you against people who would otherwise steal your business name in another state or territory. It is a very good thing. It is cost-saving and it is all in one place.

While I have the brief opportunity, the member for Mayo said he has not received the letter in response, dated 16 May. Perhaps he would like a copy now of the letter that I am sure he has in his office. He seems to have come in here claiming he did not receive a response from me. I have the response in my hand. It was posted, it is dated and I signed it on 16 May. (Time expired)

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

On behalf of the small-business community of Forde, I would like to thank the member for Dunkley and shadow minister for small business—the only shadow minister for small business on the coalition side—for this motion. Once again, we see an idea that has merit being very poorly implemented by this government. I reiterate what this motion seeks to note. As we all agree, the operation of the business owner register has been in place since 28 May 2012. Unsurprisingly, once again we see a government that has taken an enormous amount of time to act to fix implementation problems when they were recognised. One of the key issues has been the issue around privacy for home based businesses. In addition, we see that businesses have been waiting on hold for up to 45 minutes. I am aware of some cases where it has taken longer, and then they have been cut off, only to progress to an operator when contacting ASIC to have their questions or concerns dealt with. Equally, there are a large number of people who have been having problems registering, renewing, paying or transferring business names since the register was set up.

As I said at the outset, the idea has merit, but, as with many things that this government has done, it is the implementation that leaves an awful lot to be desired. My office received calls from people, particularly early in the piece, around the difficulty of accessing the ASIC website, difficulty in transferring or registering names, loss of documentation that has been provided, and going on to register and not being able to save registration part way through and having to go back to do the whole process again. The government at the time assured the coalition that home based businesses would have their privacy protected, yet this, another of the government's broken promises, is leaving business owners exposed and vulnerable. As the member for Dunkley has rightfully pointed out, this is just not good enough.

Also, despite promises being made to home based business operators, we again see small business being shunned by this government. This government cannot even fake that they have any kind of respect for the small business sector, which provides almost half of our entire workforce with employment. As the shadow minister has pointed out, since the rollout of the new system the coalition has received calls from small business owners, solicitors and accountants highlighting how the new system was botched from day one. It was heartening to see that the member for—

An honourable member: Dunkley?

No, it was not the member for Dunkley.

Honourable members interjecting—

No, the member for Chifley pointed out that there have been some improvements over the last few months, and I do congratulate them for that. But, as with anything, it takes an inordinately long time to get to these issues and to get them fixed. For those wishing to complain to ASIC about these issues, the general waiting time has been 45 minutes or longer. You can imagine that, if you are in small business and you have customers at the counter or ringing up to order a product, and you are sitting there on the phone to ASIC, you are not doing any business. You are not getting paid for it, and business are not there to be the paymaster to help solve the government's problems. They are there to build and grow their businesses, and it is from that that we continue to build the economy so that they are able to employ people and able to grow. It is just not good enough.

The coalition have tried to do something about this. We alerted the government to the problems with the register some 10 months or so ago, yet they chose to do nothing to help people with being able to register new business names. Finally we see in the last budget another $7.8 million thrown at fixing the system, finally admitting that in fact they had failed in attempting to implement the national business register. This was on top of the $125 million they had already spent on it. But, as we will always see, it is a coalition government that has at its heart the interests of small business operators. When I talk to my small business operators, they long for a change of government on 14 September.

Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Health and Ageing) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Liberal Party is no friend of small business. I looked at what the member for Dunkley had to say when this legislation came before the chamber back in 2011. I spoke after him. Today he repeated this assertion that this national register of small business was a process that the Howard government had undertaken. I think I reminded him back in September 2011 that in fact he would have supported it, perhaps, in the 12th, 13th, 14th or 15th year of the Howard government. They really did nothing about this, and this approach has been a result of the federal Labor government's legislation in September 2011. We brought this legislation through. We brought this in and the coalition did nothing. They are not friends of small business; they never have been and never will be. We know which type of business they are on the side of: big business.

When it comes to this particular thing, we are the ones who understand business. This particular legislation that we brought in was important at the time because we had different amounts that had to be paid in different jurisdictions. For example, in my home state of Queensland a business had to pay $133.60 for one-off registration or $255.60 for three-year registration. It varied in every state and territory. Thirty thousand businesses operated in multiple jurisdictions, and that equated to thousands and thousands of dollars a year.

I know what it is like to run a business, because I ran a business for more than two decades before I came here. I wonder how many businesses the shadow minister for small business ran. I built that business up into a multimillion-dollar business, so I understand what it is like to run a business—to deal with unions, with individuals, with Telstra and with those sorts of things.

This particular legislation that we brought in and that brought in this system enhanced the attitude of this government and made a difference in the lives of small business operators by reducing red tape and costs and, as the Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business talked about, bringing modernity to the system and getting rid of the paper trail. So that is what happened. We know that, with 1.5 million business names and 15 million free business name searches being conducted, of course there may be some difficulties in implementation.

I had a look at what the shadow minister said. Where was he talking about these problems in his speech back in 2011? He was saying the coalition were supportive of what we were doing. He was saying that they were going to support it. In fact, he was saying, 'We actually would have done it—in fact, we were doing it.' But, in fact, they were not doing it at all.

The situation is that government have given money. As the Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business referred to, we have provided another $7.8 million to assist in this regard. We have also seen ASIC take steps, including 150 new telephone lines in the call centre and recruitment of additional staff in the client contact centre. We have seen improvements in the average call waiting times and they have also decreased from almost 30 minutes in February this year to five minutes and 30 seconds last week.

We have seen an additional $7.8 million provided to ASIC to do improvements in this regard. We have also seen upgrades to telephony infrastructure. We have seen an increase in the rate of service for call centres over the next two years to a target of 60 per cent of all calls answered in 300 seconds—a grade of service which is comparable to other government agencies.

Those opposite who opposed small business write-offs, who want to jack up company tax, who actually opposed almost every assistance we provided to small business, including increasing the tax-free threshold for home-based small businesses, and who voted against that should hang their heads in shame when it comes to small business.

In fact, this is a disingenuous motion by the member for Dunkley, because his side of the politics would never have the wit or wisdom to do this. We have done it. We are implementing it. It helps small business. Those opposite never help small business. They are always on the side of big business. We are the ones who brought in competition policy. We are the ones who brought in trade practices legislation back in the days of the Whitlam government and who upgraded it in the days of this government. We have done a good job in assisting small business. Those opposite have not when it comes to investment, infrastructure and assistance to small business. (Time expired)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My parliamentary colleagues on both sides are well aware of the fact I have a distinct passion for small business. Before entering parliament, I ran my own small business for 10 years.

I am fortunate to have 25,000 small businesses in my electorate and across the ACT. That is about one small business for every 12 people so small business is a hugely important part of the Canberra economy, and Canberra is luck to have such a thriving small business community.

The disparaging comments that no-one in Labor has any small business background are complete nonsense. There is me; there is my colleague here. There is also the member for Blair. There are three of us on this side speaking on this motion who have had their own experience in small business. The member for Blair was in business for 25 years. I was in business for 10 years and the member for Robertson was in business for more than a decade so we have significant experience in this area and it is complete nonsense to suggest that no-one on the Labor side has any small or micro business experience.

Since elected, I have spent a great deal of time trying to improve the dialogue between small business and both sides of politics. I set up the Parliamentary Friends of Small Business with the coalition, and we have all found the discussions with small and micro businesses incredibly useful. I think that understanding the needs of small and micro business needs to be enhanced not just on this side but also on the other side. From the conversations I have had with those people who attended this bipartisan group from the other side, they have found it incredibly useful and it has enhanced their understanding of small and micro business.

A few weeks ago I hosted a small business forum here at Parliament House with the Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business and representatives from the Canberra small business community. It was a really useful opportunity for the Canberra small business community to explain to the parliamentary secretary the challenges they are facing in getting access to government contracts. We all know that there tends to be a favouritism towards primes. And I am concerned—as they are and as are many people on this side—that SMEs are being locked out of the government procurement process. So we had expansive discussions on the government procurement process generally, on tenders and on compliance, and it is the first of many conversations that we will be having in the government procurement arena.

In the conversations I have also had with the small business community—when I am not in this House I go out and speak to small businesses in Canberra day in day out—they tell me either that the market is steady or that it is growing. And that is as a result of the economic fundamentals that we have established for Canberra and also the nation: growth, growth, growth; jobs, jobs, jobs. We have created a million jobs in this country, and we have created the right economic environment for these businesses to be able to grow and thrive and prosper and to employ people. So, the conditions have been good over many years since we were elected. But what the small business community is most concerned about at the moment, in all the conversations I am having with them, is the huge hole that is going to be punched in their potential client base, in their potential market, in their potential business existence post-September. They are particularly concerned about coalition promises of axing 15,000 Public Service jobs—well, between 12,000 and 20,000 Public Service jobs; let us just settle at 15,000. That is whole areas of my community that will be gone, wiped out, in terms of jobs. If you want to have a significant impact on small business or microbusiness in Canberra, 12,000 to 20,000 jobs is going to do it. I do not hear much expression of concern about what your plans for the future are for the Canberra business community, getting rid of 12,000 to 20,000 public servants. We saw what you did to this community in 1996. We saw how you caused an economic downturn. You stopped growth. House prices plummeted. Remember 1996, Canberra. (Time expired)

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my pleasure to rise to support my colleague and friend the member for Dunkley on his important motion before the House today about the national business names register, which was established in May 2012. We would like to express our concerns, not about this idea of a national business names register—because it is a good idea, and it had its genesis in the Howard government—but about the botched implementation that has occurred on this Labor government's watch. During the register's short life, we have seen the privacy of many small business owners jeopardised through their residence being known. We have seen huge delays and waiting times as people have rung the ASIC hotline trying to get through to renew, transfer or pay for their business name.

This has moved what was formerly a state and territory based system to a national system. But I have had constituents call my office and detail the problems that they have had with this national business register. The member for Dunkley, who has been extremely energetic, passionate, and knowledgeable in his portfolio, told those opposite more than 10 months ago about the existing problems, but little was done. Millions of dollars were thrown at this national business names register—$120 million in the initial budget. And because of the loud outcry from small business, another $7.8 million has been allocated. But the money is not enough, because what we have seen from this government is its botched implementation. We have seen the pink batts fiasco and we have seen the school halls fiasco. We know you cannot protect our borders, and it is little wonder you cannot run a national business names register.

Small business is absolutely critical in our community. There are 2.7 million small businesses, employing more than four million people. In fact, 96 per cent of businesses in this country are small businesses, 47 per cent of those working in the private sector are working in small businesses, and 35 per cent of the country's GDP comes from small businesses. But you have taken small business in this country for granted. The fact that you have had five ministers responsible for small business in 15 months says it all.

You have introduced more than 20,000 new regulations. You have introduced economy-wide taxes like the carbon tax, which comes right off the bottom line of small businesses, as well as a host of other bits of red tape. In fact, the red tape is crippling the small-business sector. We have seen more than 240,000 jobs being lost from small business, again on Labor's watch, and we have seen a 95 per cent decrease in the amount of small business start-ups in this country. There are 130,000 independent contractors who are no longer there because of this government's poor record on small business.

Millions of people across this country have said, 'Enough is enough'. They want more certainty. They want people to run the government who care and who understand small business. Given the fact that there are so few members opposite who have actually run a small business themselves, it is little wonder that this government have been so unable to conduct themselves properly in the small business area.

What will we do if we are given a chance at government? The first thing is that the member for Dunkley, who will be the Minister for Small Business, will sit in cabinet. He will have a seat at the cabinet table. Small business will be in Treasury. We will introduce a fair dinkum Paid Parental Leave scheme which will be of great assistance to small business. Of course we will get rid of the carbon tax which, as I said, comes off the bottom line of small business. We will introduce changes that will see more than $1 billion in red tape removed. What a great burden that red tape has been on small businesses right across the country. We will ensure that the government pays small business on time, and there will be a penalty if it does not. We will extend the unfair contract provisions to small business. And perhaps very significantly, we will conduct a root and branch review of competition laws as well to ensure that small business gets fair dinkum go.

This motion before the House is extremely important because in setting up a national business names register we wanted to help small business. But this Labor Party has done everything to botch its implementation and therefore to hinder small business. Under the coalition we will do so much better for the small businesses of Australia. (Time expired)

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to oppose the member for Dunkley's motion on a national business names register. As much as I have much personal respect for the member for Dunkley, sadly this motion is off-key. He has hit a wrong note.

I am particularly proud of this national business names register, which has been operating successfully since 28 May 2012. I remember my days as an articled clerk working in a law firm. It was a small business actually, though it has grown to be a slightly bigger business. Much of the work of an articled clerk was spent running around inefficiently registering business names and working in state jurisdictions. Thankfully, the federal government has taken a step up and got rid of this red tape—this dreadful red tape—that is just a cost that small businesses do not know.

The national business names register in Australia became a reality one year ago today. Eight separate state and territory business name registers have made way for a single online register, which today holds more than 1.7 million names. This is bad news for articled clerks or for young lawyers. Obviously, they will not now be able to bill clients or businesses for much of their work. But it is a good thing for the Australian economy and a good thing for productivity.

Mr Deputy Chair Adams, since you and I were elected at the same time, you might recall that for the quarter when we were elected, productivity under the Howard government was running at zero—a big fat zero. They had run out of ideas, they had run out of anything except spending money like a drunken sailor. The Labor government has been much more efficient, has had much more of a national approach and has had much more of a 'what is good for business ' approach.

In the last 12 months ASIC has facilitated the online registration of over 260,000 new business names, made 120,000 updates to the register, done more than 14 million business name searches and issued close to 500,000 business name renewals. Can you imagine the work that articled clerks would have been doing but for the federal government's stepping up and making it a more efficient, unified nation?

The benefits of the national register include one stop convenience online to create, maintain and cancel a business name. Thirty per cent of registrations are done after business hours, making it more convenient for small business. There is only one registration needed Australia wide, from Perth to Coolangatta, instead of multiple registrations state by state. As a Queenslander living in Brisbane, it is not hard to be doing business over the Tweed. That is the case throughout Australia. It is cheaper, especially for customers with multiple business names. The national business names register has saved business $34 million in the last year alone. I am sure that the member for Dunkley touched on this often in his many speeches commending the Labor government for our contributions to small business! That $34 million in savings in the last year is through reduced fees to register or renew a name. Obviously, there is increased transparency as a result of more information being available online for free so that the general public can search to find out who stands behind a business name. Once upon a time in Queensland you would have engaged a lawyer to find out this information. Now you can find it online at a time that suits you.

Although the vast majority of businesses have utilised the benefits of the new online national register without any significant issues, despite this off key motion from the member for Dunkley, unfortunately some people have experienced difficulties such as accessing the website, contacting ASIC and renewing business names. That is because it is so popular. To address the congestion levels and the call wait times, ASIC recently implemented a range of strategies, including adding 150 new phone lines into the call centre. ASIC has now reached the maximum capacity of phone lines possible using our current Traralgon PABX. It has recruited additional staff in their client contact centre and registry operations team to respond to inquiries. Obviously, you respond to demand—that is what a good government does. These strategies have been largely successful in dealing with the larger than forecast call volumes, congestion levels at the exchange and call wait times. Obviously, it is so popular that too many people are trying to utilise. Bad for lawyers but good for the government in terms of improving productivity.

More recent data that I thought the member for Dunkley would be privy to indicates that almost no customers are having their calls blocked at the exchange due to congestion levels. Average call wait times have also decreased from almost 30 minutes in February to five minutes and 30 seconds last week. It is good to catch up, member for Dunkley. I am sure that you will be quick to appreciate the great work that the Labor government has done in improving productivity and making it easier for small business. (Time expired)

Debate adjourned.