Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to join this debate on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015. More than $2 billion of regulation has been stripped away since the last election as a result of the efforts of this government and it is true to say that at the same time the business of government has continued. It has continued to ensure the necessary protections and other sanctions and things that are necessary to be in place are there to protect our community and ensure proper compliance with Australian law, that these important parts of our regulatory environment not been undermined. We are interested in having good regulation, and the Australian public also believe in sensible, good regulation. They want to ensure their interests are protected, but, at the same time, their interests are not impeded by unnecessary regulation. It is true that while new measures have been brought in by the government, we have had to also introduce other measures at that time that may have increased regulation in some respects. But I can tell the House that for every dollar of new regulation that has been introduced by this government, we have got rid of $10 of old regulation. That is quite a significant achievement for a government.

When I was the shadow minister for productivity before the last election, there were occasions—indeed, I was often with the parliamentary secretary at the table, the member for Higgins—when we would go to forums and briefings and other things like that and say, 'What is the one thing we could do to help business in this country and improve productivity?' Many issues were raised, but the one issue that was always raised on every single occasion was the level of suffocating regulation that was constraining economic growth and business growth. And so, while many governments have made claims in the past about wanting to see a smaller government and have made claims about wanting to reduce regulation—have talked big in opposition but in government have failed to execute that—this government's record says something very different. We said we would do it, we said how we would do it, we said when we would do it, and we have done it. More than $2 billion in savings for businesses in compliance costs and regulatory reductions as a result of this government's consistent and applied effort.

I want to pay tribute to the parliamentary secretaries to the Prime Minister, who have been fuelling that process, the member of Pearce and, of course, the Assistant Treasurer, the member for Kooyong. I want to commend them for being the driving force that they have been in ensuring these regulatory changes have been driven through this process. It is a tedious, time-consuming process that requires total application from those parliamentary secretaries. Of course, it also needed the strong stamp of authority from the Prime Minister: that was the case with the former Prime Minister, and under the new Prime Minister it will certainly be the case as well. This is a government that is committed to ensuring reduced compliance costs because of unnecessary regulation. We will ensure there is necessary regulation; we will ensure that that appetite for regulation, that appetite for busyness that you can sometimes see in government, will not be something that this government has ever pursued or will ever pursue.

I note that those opposite, when they talk about how good a government is, talk about how much legislation they pass, as if that is somehow the measure of a good government. The measure of a good government is actually increasing the number of people in jobs by 300,000. The measure of a good government is ensuring that we are getting our spending under control. The measure of good government is acting on issues of national security and stopping the boats and doing all of that. That is what a good government looks like: you measure it on outcomes, things that actually improve the lives of people in this country. You do not measure it on how much legislation you pass and how many speeches you give in the parliament, but that seems to be the measure that those opposite are seeking to establish.

I am very pleased to support this bill. Its contents go into so many different areas, including into my own portfolio. I am very pleased to have supported this process as a minister and to have worked with the parliamentary secretaries, the member for Kooyong and the member for Pearce on it, and I commend them on the excellent work they have done.

See this speech in context