Ms LEY (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) (11:18 AM) —I do not really understand the amendments that have been moved by the member for Lowe and, I think, on behalf of the member for Hotham. I want to respond in the best way I can, which is to say that it seems to me from looking at the amendments that they are a matter of terminology which will not go to the intent or the design of the bill. The member for Lingiari seemed to suggest while I was making my summing-up speech that this was not about government helping the little guy but the big guy. Maybe I have misunderstood that, but in any case all those comments I do not accept.

I want to reiterate that this bill is about the household support available to eligible businesses that are not farmers in rural Australia. It is obviously a good thing to bring everything into the discussion, but the interest rates support that you are entitled to receive is not the subject of this bill. I think the member for Hotham made the comment in his earlier speech that if you have a business of 100 employees it is silly to suggest that you would be accessing Centrelink household support. I probably agree, but you are obviously eligible to apply. It is unlikely you would receive it as you would have significant resources of your own to rely on, but what you could access is the interest rates subsidy. Of course this is not what the bill is about but it does exist and it is part of the whole package of help available to small businesses in rural Australia.

By lifting the bar to 100 employees we are giving small businesses the option to apply for the interest rates subsidy, which I believe is what will probably matter the most to them. The member for Mallee brought a good example to the House when he talked about a machinery dealer who might have operations in several rural towns. They are a small business for all intents and purposes in the town that they are in, but let us not get hung up on the terminology. They are local, they are struggling, and they deal with farmers. If they added up the total number of employees across all of the small towns I am sure they are in in the Mallee electorate, they would probably have more than 100 employees. I certainly do not want to be part of a government that says that we are not helping them because of an aggregation that exceeds a certain number. Perhaps when the opposition understands that that is what we mean by having a limit of 100 employees they will not be so vigorous in proposing the amendments that they have. Again, I urge people on both sides of the House to support this bill.