Defining The Australian Aboriginal Business Indigenous Business

The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), estimated that around 7,000 indigenous. Australians were self-employ and own a small business in 2006. This represented 6% of all indigenous Australians. It compares with the 17% who own small businesses in the non-indigenous population. According to reports, the number of Aboriginal people. Who are self-employ has increase to approximately 12,500 over the past seven year. This suggests that there is a growing spirit of entrepreneurship within the Aboriginal community.

The ABS estimates only the number of Australian indigenous entrepreneurs. It is hard to define who or what constitutes an indigenous business. This issue was address by Professor Dennis Foley, University of Newcastle, in an article published in the Indigenous Law Bulletin. Foley’s article, Jus Sanguinis The root contention in determining the Australian Aboriginal Business examines how indigenous businesses are defined. It also explains why this definition is so important. It is actually inextricably link to the whole issue of Aboriginal identity.

Current Definitions Of Aboriginal Businesses?

Foley says that the current focus in Australia is to define Aboriginal businesses as those with at least 51% of the share capital held by Aboriginal people. Foley notes that this definition was create to prevent non-Aboriginal businesses from claiming indigenous heritage to fraudulently gain commercial benefits. This is especially true in the areas of Aboriginal artistic products and tourism.

This definition is use by the Australian Government’s Indigenous Business Australia (IBA), to determine which applicants are eligible for assistance and business development. The Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations reports that there are approximately 2,500 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander companies registered in Australia. They estimate that there may be twice as many indigenous corporations than have been officially register.

Foley says that the current definition of Aboriginal businesses is not adequate. Foley says that there may be cases where Aboriginal owners own a large portion of the shares in a company. This prevents them from being recognize as indigenous businesses. He gives several examples of notable Aboriginal businesses that are not eligible for the official definition because of the distribution of share capital.

Indigenous Business

The ABS came up with two operational definitions of an business in response to these concerns. First, an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander-owned business is one where at least one owner identifies themselves as having indigenous heritage. This second definition refers to a business that has a majority of its capital owned by people of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander heritage.

Foley also notes that these firms must be privately-own small to medium enterprises (SMEs), with fewer 200 employees. This is due to the complexity of ownership that will likely emerge when a company grows in size and moves towards public listing. He also mentions the Australian Taxation Office’s (ATO) and Business Council of Australia’s (IBCA) use of at least 50% ownership to define Aboriginal businesses.

Definition of the Indigenous Business. This is because there is no clear definition of what constitutes majority ownership and it is not mandatory for all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander owned businesses to be recognize. Foley believes this underrepresents the true number of businesses. Foley identifies the problems this creates for Aboriginal business owners. Who could become ineligible to access opportunities under Reconciliation Action Plan (RAPs) if their shareholding is too small.

Bruce Billson Your Passion For Small Business

Bruce Billson (federal member for Dunkley Business) announced on Tuesday 24 November. That he would be leaving politics following the next election. He made this decision after being demote from the Minister for Small Business. Role in September’s rise of Malcolm Turnbull to the Prime Minister.

Billson’s resignation from politics is disappointing for those who want to see small business policies that work. He was undoubtedly one of Australia’s most passionate Small-Business Ministers. This sector employs nearly half of the Australian workforce and represents 99.7%.

Billson’s loyalty and support for Tony Abbott, the former Prime Minister of Australia, came at a cost. Turnbull reshuffled the cabinet and removed Billson from his front bench. Ministerial position in favor of Kelly O’Dwyer who was both Minister for Small Business as Assistant Treasurer. Turnbull had offered Billson the possibility of a junior portfolio as Minister for Cities. But it wasn’t attractive to him.

Billson made it public by announcing his retirement from Parliament. He noted that he had spent 20 years in Parliament, six of them as Shadow Minister or Minister. earlessly advocates for the small business community, family enterprise, start up and self-employed. He felt, however, that: It is clear that I love my job, but it is impossible for me to do what I love fully.

Australia’s Minister for Small Business Over Time

Bruce Billson was Australia’s 15th Minister For Small Business. Barry Jones was the first to take office during the Hawke Labor Government’s early years in 1988. Jones served the position for two years and three month, during which time his duties were combine with those of Minister Science and Customs.

David Beddall was the next to follow, with a term that lasted almost three years and covered the Prime Ministerial careerss of Paul Keating and Bob Hawke. He had to share the portfolio of small businesses with science, construction and customs. To his credit, Beddall ordered a review of Australia’s small-business sector to identify its problems, opportunities, and challenges. This report was publish in 1990. It is still one of the most important documents in Australia relating to small-business policy and practice.

Chris Schacht was next, and served almost three years until the Keating government collapsed under John Howard’s coalition victory. Five Small Business Ministers were appoint by Howard: Geoff Prosser (March 1996 – July 1997), Peter Reith (1997 – January 2001), Ian Macfarlane (1901 – November 2001), Joe Hockey (1911 – October 2004), and Fran Bailey (October 2004 December 2007). Many of these Ministers had small business portfolios that included consumer affairs, tourism and employment.

Prime Minister Business

In 2007, Kevin Rudd was elect Prime Minister and appoint Craig Emerson Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors, and the Service Economy. Emerson was in office until 2010, when he was replace by Nick Sherry by Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of Australia.

Gillard recognized the importance of having a Minister for Small Business in the cabinet. The turbulent years of Gillard’s government saw the appointment a rapid succession of Ministers: Mark Arbib, December 2011 to March 2012; Brendan O’Connor, March 2012 to February 2013, Chris Bowen (February 2012 to March 2013), Gary Gray (March 2013 to September 2013).

Therefore, the Small Business area is often part of a larger portfolio that ministers have. It can quickly become an afterthought if it doesn’t have its own department or legislative framework.

Billson’s Legacy

After Tony Abbott’s election win in September 2013, Billson was elected Minister. He had previously held the small business shadow portfolio. Although his term was short at 2 years and 3 months, he was well-prepare for the job. The policies related to small businesses were among the best-developed of all the policy platforms that the Liberal Party had before the 2013 election.

These policies included proposals to reduce taxes, lower compliance costs, increase small business growth, review competition laws, and extend unfair contract protection for small business owners. Billson was given a seat in Treasury’s inner cabinet, and a policy support group based in Treasury. He set out to implement the blueprint for small businesses.

The 2014 federal budget was widely criticized as being unfair. It did not do much to improve the reputation of Treasurer Joe Hockey. It did contain key initiatives for small businesses. These include the reduction of the corporate tax rate for small business by 1.5% to 28.5%.

Crown Resorts Keeps Its Melbourne Casino Lisence

The Royal Commission into Melbourne’s Casino has released its report. Crown Resorts, the casino operator, found to have behave in a disgraceful manner. They used practices that were variously illegal and dishonest, unethical, exploitative, and unjustifiable.

Ray Finkelstein, royal commissioner, has determined that Crown’s loss of its licence and its impact on innocent parties as well as the company’s tardy attempts at rehabilitation should mean that it should retain its casino license – at least, for the time being.

This recommendation accept by the Victorian government. It will appoint Stephen O’Bryan, QC, an ex-commissioner with the state’s Anti-Corruption Commission. This person will oversee casino operations for the next two-years.

O’Bryan will produce a report for the Victorian government’s new gambling regulator. This will be in response to deficiencies found with the Victorian Commission for Gambling and Liquor Regulation. Crown will be grant a new license by the Victorian Gambling and Casino Control Commission.

Crown will no longer be eligible for compensation for regulatory changes that affect its business. The government announced this announcement as well. The maximum penalty for violating the Casino Control Act will be increase from A$1million to A$100million.

All this is great. All of these things should have been in place much earlier. The failure to regulate and the politics behind it made the Crown Melbourne disaster possible and even inevitable. Crown’s influence on politics, as with other gambling companies, has been significant and is a key part of the company’s business model.

The recruitment of politically and socially connect staff and directors done with the intention to influence government. It seems that their goal was to make the Crown too large to regulate. They appear to have succeeded.

Recommendations Made Along The Way Resorts

Some of Commissioner Finkelstein’s key recommendations were not include in the headline announcements by the government. They have been move down the road, at least until next year. These include the ones addressing money laundering and changes to operator’s structures. These include a reduction in maximum shareholdings and independence of the board members and senior management.

Any response to the recommendations focusing on gambling resorts harm prevention or minimisation is also defer. Finkelstein’s emphasis on these will encourage many to support gambling reform. Finkelstein’s recommendations are accept by the government, but it is not clear how it will implement them.

Finkelstein analyzed the dangers of gambling and found that. Crown Melbourne has been claiming for many years that it is the best place to deal with problem gambling. Nothing could be further from truth.

His recommendations for Crown’s paltry responsible gaming program are significant and far-reaching. These include the implementation of a comprehensive precommitment system that requires gamblers to open accounts and set money and time limits. This would create an effective self-exclusion program for the first time. Gamblers would be able ban themselves from gambling and could easily cancel the arrangement.

The Productivity Commission of Australia recommended that a pre-commitment system be implemented in its 2010 gambling report. ClubsNSW led a successful campaign against the Gillard government’s plan to implement this recommendation.

Gambling lobby members will be interested in the Victorian government’s response to Finkelstein’s recommendation. This recommendation goes beyond the Productivity Commission and recommends a default loss limit as well as regulated breaks.

Reversing The Responsible Gaming Discourse

Finkelstein’s report suggests that casinos also have a duty to take all reasonable resorts measures to minimize and prevent harm from gambling. This reverses the current responsible gaming discourse that places the burden on gamblers and, arguably, blames them for their own mistakes. If implemented well, this change could make harm prevention a top priority in gaming regulation.

It also suggests that casino data should be made publicly available for research purposes. This report highlights the difficulty and importance of getting such data. It is almost impossible to evaluate the casino’s social and personal impacts without this data. This would also be a significant step in harm prevention and mitigation efforts. This could be a step forward in anti-money-laundering efforts