Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise also to add my great appreciation for the government on this third repeal day and the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015 that we have before us in the House of Representatives today. It is one of the greatest achievements, I think, of the coalition government that we, twice a year, examine, review and repeal unnecessary red tape and regulation and reduce the amount of regulatory burden on individuals, businesses and ordinary Australians.

From the outset I want to say that one of the most time-consuming things that I find as a member of parliament, as the member for Mitchell, in dealing with Australian businesses who approach me as their local member is their great challenge with over-regulation, with difficult government process and with bureaucratic process when wanting to do something innovative, something different and something to advance their business or the quality of their product or service. It engages a large part of my time as I represent an area which has so many dynamic small and medium enterprises, like those at the Norwest Business Park, and also larger businesses. Those businesses also have difficulty with out-of-date and difficult regulation.

That is why I think it is very important that every year at regular intervals we turn to see what can be done to reduce the burden of red tape, to regulate and deregulate as appropriate to move with what is a very fast-paced society and economy. Prime Minister Turnbull speaks about the disruptive nature of technology and of changing patterns within a modern global world. That is why parliaments and legislatures need to become much more agile and forward thinking about how they react to regulation and how they are able to not only regulate but deregulate where necessary.

There is a very good example within this bill of something that would make practical common sense to everybody listening and anybody who cares to take interest in this matter that we are talking about today, and I will go straight to it. There are so many things that we are doing, but the one thing that stands out to me is that, for individuals, we are removing restrictions on the use of personal electronic devices so that travellers can use their personal electronic devices during all phases of flights. This produces a compliance saving $17.7 million. All of us fly nowadays. We have all asked, 'Why can't I use that electronic device that isn't a communication device while I am flying, during all phases of flight?' It is something that everybody wants to do today. It is something that is simple and common sense, something that every passenger can relate to. Everybody thinks, 'Why do I have to switch this off? The plane is not being affected by my personal electronic device.' That was an out-of-date Commonwealth regulation. That is why. We are getting rid of these sorts of things and being flexible enough to move with the times, to deregulate. Why do we need that regulation anymore? The answer is: we do not. The compliance cost savings of $17.7 million goes back into the economy and does not stay in the dead weight of regulation. Ordinary passengers can go about their business using their personal electronic devices during all phases of flights—a great outcome.

On something of a more serious nature, of course, there are billions of dollars to be saved in compliance costs from real regulation and the regulatory red tape that holds up the advance and development of business. It is a real challenge that they face. Too many businesses in too many fields and sectors today tell me that Australia is still one of the worst jurisdictions to do business in. In a globalised economy, we have to take this very seriously. Whether it is the health sector—which I am particularly familiar with due to the companies in my electorate—wanting to manufacture things here in Australia, it is harder for a small Australian business to get regulatory approval here than it is in the United States or Europe. There is no reason for that. It is also harder for a small start-up medical business to get regulatory approval here in Australia than in New Zealand or Canada, by a factor of five.

Why is Australia the most difficult regulatory environment to get a business up and running in of anywhere in the world in many cases? That is the question being posed by these bills. That is the question being posed by the Turnbull coalition government. Twice a year, every year, we ensure that we ask: how can we deregulate? How can we delegislate? How can we provide micro-economic reforms that really address these issues? They are crushing innovation and the ability of people to start up businesses and get them into successful zones.

When you are looking through the provisions of this bill, you will see many other key measures that I think are pretty good. The pay-as-you-go provisions, making monthly payments for certain businesses easier, have a compliance savings cost of $2.7 million. We are continuing to make pay-as-you-go costs for certain businesses easier. For the 457 visa program, streamlining the process of sponsorship, nomination and visa applications will have annual compliance savings of $29.9 million. The trucking sector will have savings of $8.3 million. Improving the ATO website so that six million Australians can find relevant information more quickly—something that I understand all taxpayers will be relieved about—has a compliance savings cost of $48.5 million.

There are so many things that we are doing inside this legislation. Government has such scope today that most people will never hear about. But, if you are affected by these things, it is a cost on you, a cost on your business and a cost on the administration of our economy that can easily be removed by deregulating. That will have no change in the quality of government and no change in the quality of our society, other than people having more time and more money in their pockets. We will have less government, doing less. It goes to the heart of our guiding values and principles about government. It is a guiding value of the coalition government to ensure that we have as little government as possible—the government that we need, the regulation that we need to administer our society efficiently, but as little government as possible to allow us to get on with things and do things that we all want to keep doing.

It is good to see additional things in this bill such as those relating to the use of online and disruptive technologies by government agencies. It is good to see things in this bill that will ensure that students, farmers and other people are able to access government agencies in modern and relevant ways. A farmer out there in the middle of the country, who has limited time to do all of the work that he has to do all day, will not have to spend half a day on the phone. If you speak to some farmers, they can spend a long time on the phone to government agencies a long way away, disrupting what they are doing, slowing down their day, slowing down our productivity and making it more difficult for a smaller scale farmer to compete. We want to remove those burdens completely for all of these people who are doing so much in our economy.

I think this has to be a regular and thorough process. It is often the case that the opposition says: 'This is just rats and mice, pennies and dimes—small-scale stuff. We would have done it anyway. It's obvious.' I do not think it is obvious. I do not think it is rats and mice. I do not think it is pennies and dimes. These small things affect individuals out there in the community, whether they are farmers, small businesses, micro-businesses, stay-at-home mums, stay-at-home dads, people who are trying to start up their own online businesses. It is those regulatory burdens that slow them down, that stop them from going forward, that take much more time in a day than they ought to and that really do put a burden on our innovative capacity as a society. It is about our ability to regularly remove these things, to ask, 'Why do we need that regulation?' or 'Why are we putting hours of red tape on the ATO website when we can make it minutes?' These things are micro—they are microeconomic reforms—but they matter. They are of great benefit to the whole of our society. When you make things easier for individuals—for individual family units and for individual businesses—you make our whole society better in a way that I think is much more elegant and productive than trying to implement macroeconomic reform.

I am a big fan. Whether you look at businesses, individuals, the farming and agriculture sector, the health sector, the building and construction industry sector or the education sector—all the different sectors that are benefiting from microeconomic reforms within this bill—it is a necessary. It is vibrant, I think, to be taking this approach to small things. All of the little things that need to get done do need to be done so that we can have easier interaction with government and easier interaction with our society so that when people want to do something that is a bit different, that is a bit outside of the current regulatory environment, that is innovative, that requires a bit of a risk—of capital, of intelligence, of their family's welfare—to put something up and see whether it is going to work in the marketplace, it is made as easy as possible from a government perspective for people to do that.

That is why I am really happy to stand up for the third time in this place to speak on these bills, and I will always speak on these bills. I will make that commitment to my electorate and to this parliament. I will always be happy to come in here and speak about all of these measures, these microeconomic reforms, these individual things that we are doing to make the lives of individuals, families and businesses so much easier in terms of interaction with government. The common-sense things that people ask us every day as legislators and as individual members of parliament are: why is that there? Why can't you get rid of that regulation so that we can just have more time in our day, so that we can get on with the things we want to be doing? Often the answer, as you will see from this legislation, is that we really do not need that regulation, we really do not need that to be the way it is. We can fix that, and twice a year now we are going to be doing this.

There is much more to be done in this space, and it is not acceptable that in so many fields we are so behind our competitors in terms of competitiveness of regulation and the regulatory environment. It is not acceptable that we are the hardest place to do business in, in so many fields, among most Western and Asia-Pacific countries in the world. We have to make ourselves competitive, and these microeconomic reform processes that we are engaging in today are the best way we can do that regularly as a parliament. So, I would ask the opposition to cease some of its derision of some of these measures and to adopt this when they are in government—

See this speech in context