Nick Xenophon (SA, Independent) Share this | Hansard source

Thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman, for picking me up on that. I refer to the foreshadowed amendments of the Australian Greens and Family First. It is a rare and beautiful thing to see Family First and the Australian Greens on a unity ticket! I agree with both of them. Senator Whish-Wilson has experience in business and Senator Day has built up a very successful business. I do not think it is a small business now, but it started off as a small business and he has dealt with small businesses. I commend him for what he has done and the way he has built up a business that has employed so many Australians—South Australians, in particular.

The current thresholds are too low. Senator Day's foreshadowed amendment and that of the Australian Greens indicate that there are many, many transactions that will not be caught by this bill. It is too narrow. The case of those who will sign a one-year contract that is worth more than $100,000 is an example. The Newsagents Federation have given examples. When entering into leases and the like there are issues that need to be ventilated.

This is the question I have for the minister. I support the increases foreshadowed by both the Australian Greens and Family First, but I understand from Senator Canavan's contribution in this debate that if the amendments are passed in this chamber the government's position is that this will be a stumbling block because it will need to go back to COAG. If that is the case, does the government have a view about reflecting the will of at least this chamber and making a commitment to go back to COAG, even if this bill is passed in its current form, to at the very least reopen the discussion about increased thresholds, as suggested by Senator Whish-Wilson and Senator Day? That, to me, would be one way out of this so at least we would be moving forward on that.