Senate debates
Monday, 14 September 2015
Bills
Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Bill 2015; In Committee
11:45 am
Peter Whish-Wilson (Tasmania, Australian Greens) Share this | Hansard source
I want to begin by focusing on the issue of the definition of a small business. We have heard today that there are numerous definitions for small businesses. It is obviously something that deserves a wider discussion and a wider debate. I note that when we in this chamber debated and passed legislation for a tax cut for small business and for depreciation allowances to be raised significantly on assets we used a $2 million-turnover threshold. Originally the government had proposed a tax cut for small businesses with a threshold of less than $5 million, if my memory serves me correctly—certainly, that was what was put out into the media—and later that was changed to $2 million. The Greens have always used a $2 million-turnover threshold in our policy on small business, but I understand the ABS and ASIC use a threshold of 15 or 20 employees. Senator Xenophon raised a point in relation to the Australian Bankers' Association's submission around the potential for financial securities firms with fewer employees to be writing literally tens of millions of dollars, if not more, in revenue—for example, they could be working on derivatives.
We also have the very obvious situation arising now in the new economy. Senator McKim is not here, but he is a big fan of the shared economy. We have seen virtual businesses, like Uber and others, that are low-employee businesses, generating billions of dollars of revenue. I think this is something we need to consider. My question to the minister is: will your five-year review include looking at potential uses or abuses of this system by businesses that in revenue terms are obviously significantly larger businesses than most small businesses? Will you consider, in line with some of the submissions we have seen, reducing the time frame for conducting your post-implementation review to two years rather than five years? If not, can you explain why five years is appropriate?
No comments