Bill
Treasury Legislation Amendment (Small Business and Unfair Contract Terms) Bill 2015
passed, as at 2015-11-12. Treasury portfolio.
- Sponsor
- Not recorded
- Portfolio
- Treasury
Recorded stages
- introduced — 2015-06-24
- second reading — 2015-06-24
- second reading — 2015-08-17
- second reading — 2015-08-18
- second reading — 2015-08-18
- third reading — 2015-08-18
- introduced — 2015-08-18
- second reading — 2015-08-18
- second reading — 2015-09-14
- second reading — 2015-09-14
- committee — 2015-09-14
- third reading — 2015-09-14
- other — 2015-09-14
- other — 2015-10-20
- passed — 2015-10-20
- royal assent — 2015-11-12
Divisions
- Peter Whish-Wilson 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? Mathias Cormann In response to the final question, — 2015-09-14, Senate: affirmative, ayes 34, noes 25
- Bob Day by leave—I move Family First amendments (1) to (4) on sheet 7757 together: (1) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (line 7), omit "$100,000", substitute "$500,000". (2) Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (line 10), omit "$250,000", substitute "$1,500,000". (3) Schedule 1, item 31, page 9 (line 21), omit "$100,000", substitute "$500,000". (4) Schedule 1, item 31, page 9 (line 24), omit "$250,000", substitute "$1,500,000". We have had a discussion about whether the threshold should be $100,000, whether it should be $300,000. I am moving that the threshold be $500,000 to get a more comprehensive sample of contractors who may be affected by this legislation. I ask honourable senators to support my amendments. Question negatived. David Leyonhjelm I move amendment (1) on sheet 7759: (1) Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit "6 months", substitute "12 months". This is a very minor amendment and it simply reflects feedback that I have had, and I am sure others have had the same feedback, to the effect that six months is an insufficient period for a number of major organisations to adjust their contracts to take account of the legislation. Indeed, the Bankers' Association sought 12 months and Westpac sought two years and has been earbashing everyone who wants to pay attention. The fact is that adjusting standard form contracts in a period of six months is quite a challenge. I think this is a minor amendment which will allow them practical time in which to accommodate the provisions of this act. Mathias Cormann I will just indicate quickly the position of the government. We do not support this amendment. We have proposed in the legislation a six-month transition period. There will be guidance and assistance from the ACCC and from ASIC and there will be a 12-month 'light touch' implementation of the regulatory change. Furthermore, in terms of providing some more detail on how the ACCC will work with industry once the protections are in effect, the ACCC will work with business and indus — 2015-09-14, Senate: affirmative, ayes 34, noes 26
Plain-language summary
No machine-written summary in this export.
Sources
em
billhome
frl act