HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2012-03-13 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

BUSINESS NAMES (COMMONWEALTH POWERS) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 1 March 2012.)

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (16:48): I am pleased to speak on the Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2011. I advise the house that I am the lead speaker on behalf of the opposition in relation to this piece of legislation. I can flag that at this stage it is not our intention to go into committee if the minister is able to answer a couple of questions that I have in the course of the second reading debate. He may not have the answers to hand, but if he can supply them at a later date that would be fine.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: You wish to flag them so that he can get advice?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Yes, he certainly can. This particular legislation was introduced in the other place, I understand, and it passed through the other place in an unamended format. I know that there is a supposed deadline to have this legislation dealt with here in the South Australian parliament so that it meets some scheduling in relation to commonwealth legislation and some transferring of funds and the like from the commonwealth to the state.

This particular bill is part of a federal government's and COAG's regulatory reform agenda. I think that the title of this reform agenda is probably from the previous Rudd administration because it has that sort of tone, if you like, about it. It is referred to as a National Partnership to Deliver a Seamless National Economy. That seems to me to be a bit of a Ruddism, but we have seen things federally move on from that previous regime, even though there was a little bit of a hiccup going back a couple of weeks ago with a leadership ballot within the ALP ranks federally.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Kavel will get back—

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: We do not need to traverse that, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know where you are coming from in looking to give me some direction on that. I just thought that I would mention that the National Partnership to Deliver a Seamless National Economy had that certain ring about it. This is a relatively uncomplicated piece of legislation, I think. From memory, it had been in the parliament before the proroguing of parliament. My understanding is that it is the case that it was introduced into the parliament last year. However, with some changes in relation to the ministry and changes to the shadow ministry, and after the proroguing of parliament, it has been reintroduced, and, on behalf of the opposition, I have the pleasure of the carriage of the legislation.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Are you going to say something about it soon?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: We are getting to it, member for Croydon, but we do not want to speed through these processes. We have to give the legislation due diligence and treat it with the respect it deserves. You cannot just rush these things through the democratic processes. I have pretty distinct memories of your dealings with legislation, member for Croydon, when you were previously the attorney-general, and issues you dealt with in your time were not necessarily rushed.

The bill refers business name powers to the commonwealth; and we have another consequential piece of legislation, if you like, that I presume we will be dealing with after we have dealt with this bill. I am not sure what the government has in mind—whether we just deal with this bill and leave that and then come to the transitional arrangements tomorrow or the next day.

In essence, a national system for registering business names has been established and this bill is designed—and we hope, we trust, that this is the case—to reduce red tape and the costs for businesses registering or renewing a business name. We have had a briefing. I have had a briefing from departmental officers and the minister's staff, and I have got some information back from the minister's office that we are grateful for.

I am happy to read into Hansard that the briefing information provided is that currently in South Australia a renewal of a business name and registration is $128 for three years and there is no option to renew a business name or register a business name for one year. However, under the new commonwealth legislation it is $70 for three years and $30 for one year; so, obviously, there are some savings to business there.

For a new business name registration, and applications, currently in the state it is $159 for three years and, again, there is no option for a one-year registration. However, under the new legislation concerning the commonwealth law, it will be $70—similar to the previous fee regime I mentioned just a couple of minutes ago—for three years and $30 for one year.

There is an aspect to this that I will raise, and this is a question that the minister can answer or get back to us on at a later date. Obviously there is a loss in revenue with these powers being transferred from the state to the commonwealth because the state receives that revenue of $128 and $158 respectively, collectively. I understand that there is a loss in revenue of $6.4 million in the 2012-13 year, but, if there is a loss in revenue in that year, I presume there will be a loss of revenue, or even an increase in revenue, if CPI were applied to that fee structure in the ensuing years. However, the state will receive $33 million in what are called facilitation payments from the commonwealth over a number of areas of reform—27 areas, I understand—in relation to the COAG's regulatory reform agenda.

I asked a question that people could not or would not answer in relation to the lost revenue of $6.4 million in the first year—and I presume in the ensuing years—and then the state receiving $33 million. I do not know whether the minister is able to answer this or whether he is able to come back to me; however, I asked the question at the time and was told that it had something to do with cabinet confidentiality, or something, which I could not really understand, because—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: No, not having any experience in that.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Not just that, member for Croydon. We are told that the state is going to lose $6.4 million in revenue and then get $33 million in facilitation payments. We are losing that income and gaining the other through facilitation payments. The question is: what was the total cost to the budget over these 27 areas of reform? I understand that the minister is not responsible for all those areas of reform, but that was a question I asked the departmental staff and, from memory, they could not, or would not, give me an answer.

However, that question could be asked of Treasury, because I would have thought that Treasury could provide that information. If my memory is correct, that information was not provided because it had something to do with cabinet confidentiality. I just find that a bit puzzling, minister, given the fact that we know we are going to lose $6.4 million in the first year, and then obviously in the ensuing years, but receive $33 million in payments over all of the areas of reform. Maybe this is the only reform in terms of transferring these business registration powers from the state to the commonwealth where there is a loss of revenue; I do not know, but that was a question I asked.

I would like an answer to that question because we are in a fairly dire economic situation. The shadow treasurer has proved that the state is in recession, even though the Premier and the Treasurer will not admit it. We are in quite dire economic—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Who proved it? Who proved that we are in recession?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: The member for Croydon actually raises an interesting point

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Who proved that?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: The shadow treasurer on the media the other day—

Ms Chapman: Kevin Foley.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Exactly. The member for Bragg is exactly right. The shadow treasurer, going by the previous treasurer's comments, the Hon. K.O. Foley—K.O., knockout, that's not a bad—you knocked him out.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: Kevin Owen.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: You knocked him out of the arena, out of the ring, didn't you?

Ms Chapman interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Yes, they did it, that's right, with some help from us though, too. It was his own take on things that those measures that the shadow treasurer highlighted proved that the state was in recession. However, we are digressing somewhat, Mr Deputy Speaker. We are in the middle of tough times, so it would be—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Norwood, I do not need your advice, thank you. Member for Croydon, could you please just listen? Member for Kavel, can you keep to the topic?

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Thank you. If the member for Croydon did not interject so readily—he is such a nuisance—we might be able to get down to the business of the bill. As I was saying, in July 2008 COAG agreed that the states would refer their business name registration powers to the commonwealth and that the commonwealth would establish a single national register for business names. I understand that this legislation has been through some of the other state parliaments and that the New South Wales and Victorian governments were happy to pass the legislation unamended. It is obviously our intention to do the same here.

The implementation of a national business names register is regarded as a reform project designed to simplify business name processes and reduce business costs. As I highlighted previously, the cost structure is less, and I again trust that the commonwealth government will maintain that fee structure and not just bring it in a for a couple of years and then start hiking it significantly so as to place arguably a higher cost burden on businesses. That, I guess, is somewhat out of our control.

I think one of the reforms that comes from this legislation that is noteworthy will be that it will remove the need for an applicant to register a business name in multiple jurisdictions. You register your business name once and that is right across the country. Previously, I understand, if you wanted a business in other states you had to register that business in Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, Western Australia and so on. This performs that role in one hit, if you like.

The system will be administered by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. My understanding is there are protections for existing business names holders and that the business names currently registered will be migrated to the new system and protected to enable them to be continued and renewed. Where a business name has the same name registered in several jurisdictions, as stated before they will only need to maintain one of those registrations. In case of identical migrated names being registered to different businesses, ASIC may include a distinguishing term on the register—for example, identifying the location (SA, Vic, NSW, things like that)—or it will consult with the business name owner.

From my briefings with the departmental officers I understand that the federal government consulted quite extensively with some of the key stakeholder groups—Master Builders Association, Adelaide Brighton, and a whole range of other key stakeholder industry groups, as I alluded to.

I think that pretty well sums up the outline of the bill, but there are a couple of other points I want to raise in relation to it that I think are important. I think it is important to mention clause 4(2) of the bill. The state is referring powers to the commonwealth obviously, through this bill, but this clause actually provides what the state is not referring, what is not included in the referral powers of the commonwealth. It ensures that other powers are not referred as a consequence of moving from a state-based system to a national system, and I think it is important to mention that.

However, as I said at the outset, this is a relatively uncomplicated piece of legislation and, as indicated in the other place when the Hon. Michelle Lensink spoke on the bill, the opposition is prepared to support it. I am pleased to conclude my comments at that point.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (17:06): I, too, rise to make a contribution to the Business Names (Commonwealth Powers) Bill 2011. I note that in 2008 the Council of Australian Governments agreed that the states would refer their business names registration powers to the commonwealth and that there would be a single national register for business names under commonwealth jurisdiction. This move is regarded as an important reform designed to simplify business processes, and I think anything that can simplify business processes is an admirable initiative.

Apart from the work businesses do in whatever business they are running, whenever it gets down to paperwork it can be either early at the start of a busy day or at the end, and people just want to be able to get the business done, and done appropriately, and know that they do not have to do it multiple times to get the same result. I think this is a great initiative so that people registering for a business in one state, say South Australia, can be registered right across this country in the appropriate manner.

The system will be administered by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. Obviously there will be protection for existing business name holders; everyone with business names currently registered will migrate to the new system and be protected, to enable them to be continued and renewed. Where a business has a name registered in several jurisdictions it will need to maintain only one of those registrations. In the case of identical migrated names being registered to different businesses ASIC may include a distinguishing term on the register, such as location, or it can consult with the business owner. I think that can be worked through, certainly with consultation, so that the business name the business owner wants registered under this commonwealth powers legislation is appropriately put in place.

This bill refers state powers to the commonwealth to enable the commonwealth to legislate for the new national business names registration system due to commence nationally in May 2012. The referral provisions contain appropriate exclusions and protections for state laws. As has been said earlier, this is part of the national partnership to deliver a seamless national economy under COAG's regulatory reform. As I have indicated earlier, for anyone like myself who has run a business, and who has had to put up with more regulation and more legislation day by day in the running of their business, anything that can make the process easier and seamless, at least in regard to registering their name, can only be a good thing.

People may be surprised to know that it can take a lot longer than they think because, even when you think you have the appropriate business name for your business, you can find out that there could be 10, 20, 30 different variations on what you want to put up. You certainly have to have reserve names in mind because you may not get the initial name up. I certainly think this is very good legislation going through this place, and I hope for its speedy process.

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:10): Can I say to the member for Hammond: I think his wish may be granted. I am not entirely sure, but I think it might go quickly. Can I thank both the opposition spokesman and the member for Hammond for their contributions on the legislation.

People here know that I have never been a fan of COAG for its own sake; however, I have to say that, in this particular instance, the practicalities of having to register businesses all over the country was, quite frankly, a pain in the neck for people who had to do it. It is a sensible reform.

Ms Chapman interjecting:

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, there have been many problems, and this saves a lot of trouble. It possibly even does some lawyers out of work in terms of passing-off actions, but never mind. I do appreciate the support the opposition is offering in relation to this measure.

In respect of the particular questions the honourable member asked me, I have made some inquiries. I have to say that the only revenue loss material I have available to me relates to the revenue that would have come into us specifically in relation to business names, and I understand the honourable member already has that. The only suggestion I can make is that at some point, either in a general context or perhaps in the context of estimates, it might be something that can be asked of Treasury or somebody who actually collates all these numbers, but we certainly do not in the Attorney-General's Department.

In fact, I am actually not aware of what all the things are that add up to the $33 million. I have heard the number 33 several times, but exactly what counts in that basket of activities I honestly cannot say. Presumably Treasury and/or the Premier's department were involved in some assessment of those at some point in time, but I am afraid I cannot help the honourable member in detail about those matters; otherwise, I do not think there is anything more I can say. I understand it is not the wish of the house to go into committee.

Bill read a second time.

Third Reading

The Hon. J.R. RAU (Enfield—Deputy Premier, Attorney-General, Minister for Planning, Minister for Business Services and Consumers) (17:14): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT