Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .

Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2004 Week 10 Hansard (Thursday, 26 August 2004) . . Page.. 4414 ..

analysis to which I will refer in more detail later. I do not have time to point out all the problems relating to the Treasurer’s recent outburst so I will deal, first, with the facts.

I refer, again, to some of the key results in this bulletin. The Australian Bureau of Statistics identified the number of small businesses operating in the ACT as at June 2001 and June 2003. The number of businesses that do not have any employees—that is, there is only the owner of the business—fell from 10,600 to 9,700. The number of businesses with one to four employees fell from 6,000 to 5,200. The number of businesses with five to 19 employees fell from 1,900 to 1,300.

It is important to note that each of these sets of numbers is subject to some degree of sampling error. Overall, their poor performance is really highlighted. The aggregate outcome for small businesses in the ACT has been a fall from 18,500 to 16,100—that is, a reduction of 2,400 businesses over two years. This time the aggregate estimates are not subject to any qualification in relation to the sampling error. What did our Treasurer say about these statistics? In question time on Tuesday the Treasurer said:

The table, which I hold in my hand, is very heavily qualified. All the numbers incorporated there have a qualification that starts with, “Estimate has a relative standard of error of 10 to 25 per cent and should be used with caution.

That statement is just plain wrong. The Treasurer should have a look at page 45 of the bulletin and he should read that bulletin. He should be using the highest possible standards of analysis and commentary. He should be accurate in his comments and not resort to silly rhetoric to obscure his failing as small business minister. I am most surprised that the Treasurer of this territory suggested that the ABS released unreliable information. Quite simply, that is nonsense. The Australian Bureau of Statistics, one of the most eminent organisations in the world, which is involved in collecting and analysing statistics, reported that, in aggregate, without qualification, the number of small businesses in the ACT fell by 2,400 between June 2001 and June 2003.

It is absurd for the Treasurer to say that I drew a conclusion of convenience rather than making an objective assessment of available data. What have I done? I read the results of an ABS survey and I commented on those results. That is an objective assessment of available data—nothing more and nothing less. The ABS reported that the number of small businesses in the ACT had declined on the basis of considerable expertise within the ABS, on the basis of the results of a regular survey conducted by it, and on the basis of an analysis undertaken by it. Taking into account possible errors arising from the sample size, the ABS concluded that the number of small businesses had declined. The outcome was not that the number of businesses had increased or stayed the same; the outcome was that there had been a fall in the number of businesses.

I refer to another table in the bulletin. The ABS also provided results in relation to home-based small businesses which show that between June 2001 and June 2003 the number of home-based small businesses operating in the ACT fell from 17,900 to 14,300—a fall of 3,600 businesses. Again there is no qualification of these numbers in relation to the sampling error. The result, which is not out of date, is that there are fewer home-based small businesses when there should have been more if, as the Treasurer claimed, this is the most business-friendly jurisdiction in the country. Those numbers

Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .