Michael Sukkar (Deakin, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am rising to speak on the Personal Property Securities Amendment (Deregulatory Measures) Bill 2014. After hearing the member for Parramatta's contribution we now understand fully what the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government was all about. The member for Parramatta said: 'This is just the normal work of government. This is just the ordinary work that we do.' She forgot that the Labor Party increased the number of regulations by 21,000 in six years. When they came to office they suggested they would have a one-in one-out policy for regulations. By the end of their term there were an additional 21,000 regulations. So when the member for Parramatta says, 'This is the ordinary work of government,' quite frankly, I scoff because their record is absolutely outrageous.

Whenever we are discussing deregulation the Labor Party speak as though they are the champions of deregulation and this just happens and it should just ordinarily happen. If that is the case, why is their record so dismal in this respect? In the small business sector 519,000 jobs were lost in their six years of government. Forgive me, member for Parramatta, if I do not accept your rhetoric. For the member for Parramatta to spend the vast majority of her contribution criticising this bill and in the end supporting it I think indicates the hollow rhetoric she was engaging in.

But, as the name suggests, the purpose of this bill is to continue the process of simplifying the personal property securities legislative regime that operates in Australia with a particular view to limiting and reducing the administrative burden placed on all businesses but particularly small businesses. I know the member for Parramatta thinks these things are not worthy to talk about, but how do we help small businesses get ahead? We get out of the way. The Labor Party always talks as though the marker of success of a government is how much legislation we pass in this House. Well my marker of success is the opposite. The fewer pieces of legislation we pass in this House, the more we get our hands out of small businesses' pockets and the fewer forms we impose on small businesses to fill out are my markers of success.

The member for Parramatta talked about wanting to see a full board of legislation. She said she was disappointed that there is not a full board of legislation, but I have the absolute opposite opinion. I am extraordinarily happy when government is getting out of the way and is allowing our citizens and small businesses to do what they do best, and that is create wealth and opportunities for themselves. We have seen that governments do not create those opportunities. I think the member for Parramatta spelt out very nicely, but probably unwittingly, the core values and beliefs of the Labor Party—that the marker of success of a government is to pass more regulation and more legislation. They did that very successfully, and who suffered? Small businesses. There were 519,000 jobs lost. This legislation goes a small but symbolic and important way towards improving that situation.

As previous speakers have said, the personal property security regime came into effect with bipartisan support in 2009. It introduced a national register. The creation of that national system streamlined and provided a framework for the creation, registration, priority and enforcement of security interests. It altered the manner in which businesses were able to borrow and it brought about increased levels of confidence for lenders. It was of course of particular importance to small businesses. In that respect the bipartisanship on this issue was important. We all know from our own electorates that often it is difficult for small businesses to access the credit that they need to grow and expand their businesses. This regime was very important and altered the way in which it did so.

It also reformed the laws. We did away with 23 state, territory and Commonwealth property security registers and the associated 70 pieces of supporting legislation. Given that those changes were made some six years ago, I think it is now important that we address some of the issues associated with it. So what does this bill seek to achieve? As I said earlier, it seeks to streamline a range of current definitions in the PPSA. Previous speakers have spoken about each of those and I will briefly touch on them.

As the member for Longman pointed out, in the higher end rental industry—an industry which employs over 18,000 people and has a turnover, to put it into some context, of over $6.6 billion—the changes included in this bill will drastically reduce the number of registrations that will need to be made. The member for Longman quite thoroughly went through what these changes would be based on experiences with a business in his electorate. We estimate that will save those businesses around $11 million a year. Some might think that is a trifling amount, but all of these small changes and incremental amendments to decrease regulation ultimately have a very significant impact, particularly on small business. We are doing this through simplifying the rules on when a lease will be deemed to be a security interest for the purposes of the PPS Act and, as other members have said, clarifying the definition of a motor vehicle.

There is one additional change that I think is quite important and has not been spoken about at length. Whilst it is not contained in this bill, it is complementary. That is the fact that the Attorney-General has separately announced that we will shortly proceed with a statutory review of the PPS Act to consider whether the act creates an effective consolidation of the system governing personal property securities ownership in Australia. That is so important because it is not good enough to introduce wide-ranging and sweeping legislation such as the PPS Act and have a set-and-forget approach. We have to be ruthlessly constantly reviewing these rules and regulations and legislation to ensure that the circumstances described and which this bill is trying to amend do not drag on for too long.

The fact that this regime commenced back in 2009 and now some six years later we are making minor amendments to issues that presumably the higher end of the industry have had to deal with this whole time is too long. When members opposite talk about the ordinary course of business of government, I ask, 'Why did you allow that to transpire for some 4½ years? Why wasn't it fixed earlier?' It took a coalition government to consult with and listen to small businesses and make the change.

I welcome the review by the Attorney-General because government should impose discipline on itself that when it makes wide-ranging reforms there is a constant eye to unintended consequences or effects from those changes that negatively impact on any stakeholders so that it can swiftly amend them. That is what this government will do. In a commercial world—from my former life practising as a lawyer, I know that the PPS Act contains lots of complexity—definitions and circumstances are changing all the time. So I think it is very timely that the review happens now.

The establishment of a single national framework when it came to personal property securities was undoubtedly a good thing. Credit goes to the former government, with our bipartisan support, on that. It means that our small businesses just deal with one legal framework rather than the myriad state and territory based systems that previously existed. This government believe above all else that, regardless of whether a regulatory system is national or not, it must always be updated to ensure that the burden it places on businesses is as minimal as possible. Members opposite can say that that is the ordinary work of government; I would say that is the ordinary work of coalition governments. That is the ordinary work that we do. The fact that we have, through our two red tape repeal days, repealed over $2 billion of regulatory complexity indicates that, yes, it is the ordinary work that coalition governments do, but I would disagree that it is the ordinary work that Labor governments do. I enthusiastically commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context