Page 382 - Week 01 - Thursday, 16 February 2012
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
In considering this bill I also invited comment from stakeholders. The Canberra Business Council raised a number of issues that cannot be addressed at territory level through this bill. The council had raised these matters in their submission to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics in its inquiry into the establishment of a national business names register. I call on the attorney to take these matters on board and pursue them with his federal colleague.
Firstly, the council says there needs to be a better system for identifiers for identical business names that are used in the same jurisdiction. Secondly, it calls for legislation to pay more regard to the value of trademark assets, particularly as a means by which to establish priority for applications for identical business names. Finally, the Canberra Business Council considers the ACT’s current choice available to business owners for the period of registration should be retained in the legislation. Currently, ACT business owners can choose to register their business name for three or five years. The national scheme only allows registration for one or three years. Such a restriction only adds to the bureaucratic red tape already plaguing business owners in the territory.
Returning to the scrutiny of bills committee, I note that it drew attention to the possible Henry VIII clause contained in this bill as it relates to transition provisions. In effect, the Henry VIII clause serves to restrict the legislature’s ability to legislate. In this case it is because the bill gives the executive power to make regulations, which, in effect, change the law without going through the due process of parliamentary debate.
The committee has raised this issue many times before and the government, as it does in relation to this bill, continues to deflect the committee’s concern. The government does not accept this assertion in relation to bills on the basis that it does not restrict the Assembly’s ability to legislate. The Assembly is able to disallow any regulations, and the relevant provisions for which regulations can be made have a finite life. Whilst we have concerns with the government’s propensity to persist with Henry VIII provisions, we are prepared to accept the government’s arguments on this occasion.
One might think that a reform of this nature whereby a territory function is transferred to the commonwealth would serve to save money for the territory. This is not the case. Officials advised me in the briefing on this that the legislation will not necessarily save substantial costs for the ACT because staff engaged in the business registration section, which is not a full-time activity, will be redeployed elsewhere. Any savings will be incidental at best—things like processes or form printing. There will, however, be substantial savings for businesses currently in the ACT. A three-year registration of a business name costs $151 and a five-year registration costs $221. Under the new ASIC scheme which commences in May, a one-year registration will be $30 and a three-year registration $70.
This bill and the national approach to business registration have the potential to make life a little easier for our country’s business owners. Anything that makes their life a little easier should be given every opportunity to succeed. This is so particularly in times of economic difficulty. We can thank the various Labor governments around the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video