Mathias Cormann (WA, Liberal Party, Minister for Finance) Share this | Hansard source

The point I would make is that this is obviously a new proposition. Up until now there were certain protections from unfair contract terms in place for consumers. We are now extending those to small business. We have made a judgement on the appropriate thresholds for contract value based on consultation with small business stakeholders and with the states and territories.

In the end—and I said this in response to the contribution by Senator Day as well—we can go round and round in circles. Out of 76 senators, everybody might have a different view as to where the right line in the sand is. The government have made a judgement based on consultation with stakeholders and with the states and territories. We are posing the legislation on that basis. If the legislation is passed by the Senate and by the House of Representatives, small businesses across Australia will start to enjoy the benefits of this protection. I would envisage that the review that the government has committed to two years after the legislation has come into effect will consider this issue of appropriate thresholds for contract value and, no doubt, will make recommendations at that point on how these thresholds and other matters should be or could be improved.

If we amend this legislation now to give effect to the spirit of what the Greens and Senator Day, in unison, have put forward then it will be a stumbling block. Senator Whish-Wilson regrettably described that as me threatening the Senate. No, I am just informing the Senate about the circumstance that we are in. If the Senate were to insist on that amendment now rather than to make it the subject of a review in two years time then it would mean that no small businesses across Australia would be able to benefit from the additional protection from unfair contract terms that is proposed in this legislation. In practice, that would mean that the thresholds would continue to be zero, where they are now. The question is: do we leave them at zero or do we lift them to $100,000 and $250,000 respectively, with an undertaking that this will be something that will be looked at in two years time by the Senate Economics References Committee inquiry? Obviously that judgement and choice is not entirely for the Senate, but it is very important for the Senate to be aware of the implications of any decision we may make.