Matt Williams (Hindmarsh, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015. It is great to have the Minister for Small Business in the House. He is, I know, a great supporter of creating the best business environment we can have, and that includes removing red tape. The Minister for Small Business has had some great successes this year, including the 2015 budget and that $5.5 billion package to help small business, incentivise small business, get the economy going and reduce taxes and taxed incentives.

Notwithstanding that success, the Minister for Small Business did have a defeat on the weekend with his beloved Richmond. I commiserate the Minister for Small Business and Richmond for losing three finals in three successive seasons to one of my teams—my favourite team actually: Port Adelaide. It is about perseverance, and that is what much in life is about. Just on football, without diverging too much, I want to pay tribute to the Adelaide Crows and wish them all the best for their final against Hawthorn tomorrow night in Melbourne. In particular, I hope that the Adelaide Football Club—including: Rob Chapman, the president; directors Rod Jameson and Nigel Smart; their captain, Taylor Walker; and Bob Ford—go well. I wish them all the best for the match against Hawthorn tomorrow night.

While I am on football, the member for Wakefield is in the House and I just want to wish his team, Central Districts, all the best in the SANFL finals on the weekend, because they are playing against one of my local clubs too, West Adelaide Football Club, in one of the finals. That should be a great encounter. West Adelaide lost to another one of the good local football clubs in my area, the Woodville West Torrens Football Club, on the weekend too and they are in the grand final in a couple of weeks time. All the best to the football teams in their matches over the weekend.

Getting back to the purpose of this bill, cutting red tape is at the heart of the coalition government's mission to build a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia. For too long, more regulation has been the default option for policymakers. During the previous government, some 21,000 new regulations found their way into national life. Poorly designed and inefficient regulation has been imposing unnecessary costs on every Australian. The coalition government is cutting red tape and changing the way regulators act and behave. The government has taken steps to remove around $2.5 billion in red tape, more than double the annual net $1 billion target it committed to delivering—an outstanding achievement.

I am pleased to play a role in the deregulation committee. Initially it was chaired by Josh Frydenberg, who is now the Assistant Treasurer. It is now chaired by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Christian Porter, who is doing a fantastic job in this space. As I have mentioned, deregulation units have been established, from existing resources, in every portfolio to drive red tape reduction across the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is working collaboratively with the states and territories to reduce red tape across all levels of government.

We committed to repealing $1 billion worth of red tape per year. As part of this commitment, the government dedicate two parliamentary sitting days as repeal days every year. Following the government's third repeal day, the government will have repealed more than 10,300 legislative instruments and introduced legislation to repeal over 2,700 acts of parliament. The first repeal day in March last year announced measures that, when fully implemented, will result in gross savings in excess of $700 million in reduced compliance costs. The second repeal day in October 2014 announced measures that, when fully implemented, will result in savings measures in excess of $2.1 billion in reduced compliance costs. On the third day, 18 March 2015, the government announced measures that, when fully implemented, will result in net savings in excess of $2.45 billion in reduced compliance costs. This is significant progress and significant savings, all due to good government policy and execution of that policy.

I want to touch on a couple of specific areas of red tape reduction and reduction in compliance. The first one is making it easier to navigate around the ATO website. Since late 2014, the ATO has been improving client experience by changing the structure and design of its website so that individuals and businesses can find relevant information more quickly. In a meeting with the ATO commissioner yesterday, I was very pleased to hear about some of their initiatives—the development of portals and making their operations more efficient and more consumer friendly for the Australian public.

Each year around six million people use the ATO website. To make the website more user friendly, the ATO is changing the structure of the website to make it more intuitive and task based. The search function is being improved and information is tailored to specific audiences, including individuals, businesses and intermediaries. The Treasury portfolio has estimated that this will lead to an annual saving of close to $50 million in compliance costs.

We have also introduced more flexible screening arrangements at Melbourne and Adelaide airports. As Adelaide Airport is in the middle of Hindmarsh, operational improvements there are always significant for my electorate. On 19 November 2014, the Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development served amendments to aviation screening notices to introduce more flexibility at multilane passenger screening points at the Melbourne and Adelaide airports. Following a trial in 2013, operators will now have the option to conduct explosive trace detection, or ETD, screening operations at the front of a screening point and to test persons in batches of up to three persons per ETD test. Industry will benefit from reduced staffing requirements and reduced capital and maintenance costs, and passengers will save time during the screening process, something I am sure everyone will appreciate when they go through the airports. The improved screening will be achieved while maintaining high security standards, something we are committed to. The Department of Infrastructure and Regional Development has estimated that this will lead to annual savings of $8.8 million and $2.4 million in compliance costs for the Melbourne and Adelaide airports respectively.

Another important initiative is reducing duplicate assessments for Australian manufactured medical devices. The medical devices and health services sector is a sector of great strength in Australia as well as being, given ageing populations in many of the countries we trade with, one of great future opportunity. On 15 October 2014, the Assistant Minister for Health announced changes to the regulation of therapeutic goods that will allow Australian manufacturers of medical devices to obtain market approval for most of their products using conformity assessment certification from European notified bodies. The change will allow Australian manufacturers to choose to have a conformity assessment conducted either by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA, or by an alternative conformity assessment body, such as a European notified body. This will put Australian manufacturers of all but the highest risk products on an equal footing with those from overseas, avoiding the need for duplicate conformity assessments for those manufacturers wishing to export their products to Europe. In many cases this could allow locally made medical devices to get to market more quickly. This is so important in helping our competitiveness in the global economy. The new rules will not apply to the very highest risk devices, which will still need TGA conformity assessment. The compliance cost savings are estimated to be $6.1 million.

The final matter I want to cover is foreign purchases of agricultural land. Foreign investment is something we have just discussed in this House.    On 11 February 2015, the government announced that the screening threshold for foreign purchases of agricultural land will be reduced from $252 million to $15 million from 1 March 2015 and that the government will introduce a foreign ownership register of agricultural land from 1 July 2015. These changes increase scrutiny and transparency around foreign investment in agriculture. The new $15 million threshold will apply to the cumulative value of agricultural land owned by the foreign investor, including the proposed purchase. Consistent with free trade agreement commitments, this will apply to all non-government investors except those from the United States, New Zealand, Chile, Singapore and Thailand. All proposed direct investments by foreign government investors, including in agriculture, will continue to be reviewed regardless of value. The government is currently consulting on a range of options to strengthen Australia's foreign investment framework. Final figures are still to be determined for a range of implementation options and will be accounted for on the spring repeal day.

In closing, the coalition government understands that in order to build a prosperous economy we must relieve the burden of government red tape on businesses, community organisations, families and individuals. We must allow people and businesses to do what they do best rather than spending wasted hours dealing with paperwork, waiting in queues or searching for information. Importantly, we want to hear from businesses, community organisations, families and individuals on how we can cut even more red tape to help build a productive and prosperous economy for the benefit of all Australians.

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The member for Kooyong, Josh Frydenberg, has moved on to greener pastures, but this time last year he was the humble—well, he was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Australia's red-tape tsar. Describing the origins of his zeal for cutting red tape, Mr Frydenberg told The Australian Financial Review about the time his wife went to Centrelink to apply for paid parental leave. I thought to myself: 'She went to Centrelink to apply for paid parental leave? Does that make them double dippers or rorters, to use the words of the member for Cook? I guess it does.' But he was not making the point that he would fall into the category of double dipper or rorter. Rather, he was making the point that he was beside himself over the paperwork his family had to deal with in signing up for government paid parental leave alongside employer based paid parental leave—and he committed himself on the spot to doing something about it.

You have to give him credit: the member for Kooyong does not do things by half. He certainly found a solution to that red-tape problem at Centrelink. The government's solution is apparently to change the scheme so that, in future, families who want to claim the payment that his family claimed would not be entitled to do so—80,000 new mums booted off the Paid Parental Leave scheme. That will save them having to fill out the sorts of forms the member for Kooyong's family had to—by completely cutting off their access to parental leave. It is an ingenious solution from the former red-tape tsar and you can see why, with ideas like that, the government has promoted him.

At the heart of this story is the problem with the Abbott government's—now Turnbull government—approach to so-called red tape repeal. Most of the time the changes they make in bills like this are completely pointless. The member for Watson has referred to it as the 'war on punctuation'; around my office this part of the government's agenda is referred to as the 'Comma Commandos'.

With the government putting forward so many examples of ridiculous changes and pointless updates, it is hard to pick a favourite. After all, this is a bill that goes to the trouble of changing 'if' to 'of' in the Surveillance Devices Act 2004; and replaces the gendered 'Chairman of Committees' with the more politically correct 'Chair of Committees' in the Parliamentary Presiding Officers Act 1965 and the Public Works Committee Act 1969. It is somewhat ironic give that I have heard members of this government proudly say that the term 'chairman' should continue to be used rather than 'chair' within their internal processes. I digress.

I could not go past the government's brave and important decision to replace the term 'reference base' with 'index reference period' in 31 acts discussing indexation provisions. That is going to be a huge gain for Australia. You can already imagine the other OECD countries and the G20 countries, sitting around saying,' Well, if we want to follow Australia's economic lead, what we need to do is change reference base to index reference period in our acts too.'

Yet the government is trumpeting these so-called red tape reductions. Mostly, this is what it is doing: removing commas, replacing prepositions, and updating words like 'fax' to 'email'. It is mostly harmless stuff, but certainly nothing deserving the kind of fanfare the government gives it. When we were in office, Labor removed 16,000 redundant acts, regulations and legislative instruments but we did not declare war on bad punctuation. Fixing typos is simply part of the background work of government. Red tape repeal day is like having a day where you come to the office, have a cup of tea and get to work.

Occasionally, when the government gets its red tape scissors out, it actually does real harm. There is no better example than the Abbott-Turnbull governments' attempts over the past year to scrap the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission under the guise of cutting red tape.

Our charities and not-for-profits are the backbone of Australia's community life. Every day, across Australia, hundreds of thousands of organisations deliver services to the sick and elderly, help make our environment cleaner, contribute funds for critical research, run programs to keep at-risk kids out of the justice system and make sure that our social fabric is that little bit stronger. Charities are vital for our community and, if their contribution was measured in GDP, our GDP would be considerably higher than it is today. As it is, the measured economic activity of charities is around five per cent of total GDP and turns over about $1 billion a year.

The Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission exists so that those charities can spend less time filling in paperwork and more time helping Australians. Independent research suggests the commission saves charities around $120 million a year in compliance costs. That is $120 million more that can be spent in communities that really need the help. As well as accrediting charities so that they can qualify for tax-deductible gift recipient status, the commission also helps not-for-profits understand and meet their governance obligations through information, advice and guidance.

When it cuts red tape for charities, the charities commission protects Australians from scammers. Before we established the commission, Australians had no way of finding out whether a charity was dodgy or legit; whether somebody who came to your door asking money was a real charity or a scammer. Now you can jump onto www.acnc.gov.au and check them out in an instant. The charities commission is proactive when it comes to dealing with scammers. In 2014, it deregistered several charities across Australia after investigations showed their benevolent work was a sham.

Earlier this year we celebrated with a birthday cake at the opposition end of the House of Reps—the fourth birthday since the establishment of the charities commission. This was an event to which all members of parliament were invited, but I was sad not to see a single one of my coalition colleagues. It was disappointing that even the member for Dunkley, the great bipartisan member that he is, was not able to be there to support the work of the charities commission.

Bruce Billson (Dunkley, Liberal Party, Minister for Small Business) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Did I get an invitation?

Andrew Leigh (Fraser, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Assistant Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You did, member for Dunkley; you were invited and, sadly, you declined the invitation to celebrate what is a great Australian institution. I know people on both sides of this House support charities, but you have got to go further than simply supporting charities in words; you have got to do it in your deeds.

The charities commission is recognised by charities across the spectrum as having built Australia's first national charities register, which now has nearly 60,000 charities on it. It not only protects Australians from scammers but also allows us to understand the full size, depth and economic contribution of the charity sector for the first time. We used to have lists of charities kept by the tax office, but the lists were out of date, overlapping and nowhere near as consistent as the charities register we have now under the charities commission.

The charities commission has now de-registered or revoked the charitable status of over 1,000 not-for-profits, which no longer met the requirements. In some cases the groups were inactive; in others, it was because they were not involved in legitimate charitable work. But the charities commission's work in monitoring and de-registering charities means that Australians can have confidence in those charities which remain listed on the charities register.

When Labor set up the charities commission, we hoped to one day make it a streamlined national scheme—much like a previous Labor government did in streamlining the Corporations Regulations in 1990, moving from state and territory based corporations registers to a single national corporate regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. That same streamlined national scheme for charities is also in operation in Ireland and the United Kingdom. Australia can do the same and can reduce paperwork for charities as we have done for corporations. South Australia and the ACT, to their credit, have tied their charities regulation to the national charities commission. Rather than having separate regulatory schemes, any not-for-profit that registers with the national charities commission is now automatically registered in that state or territory as well. So they qualify for state concessions and exemptions simply by becoming a deductible gift recipient at the federal level.

We know that other states are also looking closely at this approach because it makes like significantly easier both for charities and state regulators. We hope the charities commission will act for not-for-profits like ASIC does for business: that it can be a one-stop shop for registration and reporting. But here is the catch: the charities commission can only do that if the Turnbull government allows it to stay open and continue its good work. The coalition went to the last election promising to scrap the commission. Former social services minister Kevin Andrews spent much of last year trying to break it up. Indeed, there is still a bill languishing on the Notice Paper in this very House that would abolish the commission, although the government has not been game to bring it on since a single brief day of debate late last year.

Before the winter break, the Senate passed a motion calling on the government to withdraw that bill and commit to giving the charities commission the resources it needs to continue operating on a permanent basis. Given that the coalition did not even call that to a vote in the Senate, that gives you a pretty strong sense as to how the Senate crossbenches feel about maintaining the charities commission. I would reinforce to the House of Representatives today that the Senate supports the charities commission.

We know that charities support the charities commission. The 2014 Pro Bono Australia State of the Sector survey found that four in five charities said the commission was very important for the sector, a result virtually unchanged from the previous year's survey, which does tell you something about the advocacy power of the member for Menzies.

Last year, over 40 charities signed an open letter to the Prime Minister calling for him to keep the charities commission. The signatories read like a who's who of the charity sector, including Lifeline, ACOSS, Save the Children, the RSCPA, World Vision, the Ted Noffs Foundation and many more. Nine in 10 submissions to a Senate inquiry about the charities commission called for it to be kept. In consultations between the social services department and over 300 charities, the vast majority wanted to build on the commission's work rather than scrapping it altogether.

Basically, the charities sector believes that the commission is doing great work and should be retained. That is because not-for-profits understand that the commission cuts red tape rather than creating it. Labor understands that too. Charities want to save time and money by reporting once through a single agency.

We have seen hints of a new approach since Scott Morrison, the member for Cook, took over from Kevin Andrews, the member for Menzies. He has indicated that scrapping the commission is 'not a priority'. He went to a Philanthropy Australia meeting on 9 September 2015 and again hinted that the government did not want to go ahead with scrapping the charities commission. But here is the thing. Until the charities commission gets the certainty that it needs from this government, it will continue to have difficulty attracting and retaining staff. It has recently seen around 25 per cent staff turnover each year as a result of the legislative uncertainty caused by this government. The government just needs to withdraw the charities commission abolition bill from the Notice Paper and clearly state that it recognises, as the charitable sector and Labor do, that the charities commission is a way of cutting red tape, not a form of red tape.

Of course, the other big red tape cut that the Comma Commando from Kooyong was going to deliver was the gutting of Labor's future of financial advice reforms. Those reforms set new professional and ethical standards for financial advisers and reduced the lifetime cost of receiving financial advice. We introduced them to prevent a collapse like another Storm Financial, when thousands of people lost their life savings because of bad financial advice.

On the government's first Red Tape Repeal Day, the member for Kooyong stood in this chamber and proudly listed the FoFA changes as one of his main red tape targets. One year on, Labor and the Senate have stood up to stop the watering down of consumer protection and said no to letting practices like conflicted remuneration continue unchecked in the financial advice sector. He could not get it done, because it was a bad policy that would put thousands of Australians at financial risk.

It is becoming a bit of a habit with the Member for Kooyong, I am sad to say. He is big on a headline and loves the announcement, whether it is FoFA, legislating the bank deposits levy or cracking down on multinational tax avoidance. But, when it comes to delivery, FoFA changes went down in flames, Josh Frydenberg and Joe Hockey got rolled on the bank levy at a cost of $1½ billion to the budget bottom line and the great crackdown on corporate tax, according to the budget numbers, does not raise any revenue. Perhaps the former tennis ace from Kooyong needs to focus more on actually concluding sets rather than just serving into the net.

The thing about the coalition's approach to red tape is that they claim their red tape measures are necessary and significant. They are right, but it is a pity that over the past year they have made very clear that the necessary ones are trivial and the significant ones are unfair.

Tony Pasin (Barker, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015. This bill is a coalition initiative which seeks to amend and repeal redundant and ineffective legislation across seven portfolios of government. This particular bill is one of four such bills which this government has proposed since it came to office that have been directed at cutting red tape and repealing redundant legislation. This bill delivers on our commitment to the Australian people to clean up the mess Labor legislators left in the wake of their disastrous term of government.

This bill is comprehensively consistent with the coalition's commitment to cut red tape and reduce the suffocating regulatory burden big government has on Aussie businesses, on individuals and on our community sector. Not only is the bill delivering on our commitment to smaller, more efficient government; it is also true to our values. We of the coalition know that big and intrusive government is ineffective, cruel and discouraging to human achievement. Ours is a philosophy of strategic but limited government. We believe in creating the space for success, not suffocating it. The coalition's commitment to freeing Australia from unnecessary and burdensome red tape has been an essential change in direction from the overburdening, overregulating, job-destroying mindset of the Australian Labor Party when they were last in government.

We are delivering on that commitment today. The coalition knows that, when you trust the people of Australia to make their own decisions with small, efficient regulatory frameworks, we actually succeed as a nation. Labor does not trust the individual. To them individual enterprise must be suffocated under a mountain of regulatory compliance measures.

There is a risk that this bill might not receive the attention it deserves because it deals with abstract policy or because it does not deal with some hot topic of the day. On the contrary, this bill delivers better legislative outcomes across a broad range of government portfolios that affect many, many Australians. I particularly commend the steps this bill is taking to reduce the regulatory burden we have on our agricultural sector. Agriculture is an essential pillar in the Australian economy. The coalition is fully committed to attaining better outcomes for the agricultural sector. Labor do not and never will understand agriculture; that is why they are prioritising their own CFMEU mates over our farmers on the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. Because this government is fiscally responsible and economically competent, it takes a different perspective on ChAFTA and a different approach to cutting red tape for our farmers.

In developing this bill we have consulted broadly with the National Farmers' Federation, the Australian Conservation Foundation, the World Wildlife Fund, Greening Australia, Conservation Volunteers Australia and Landcare networks as well as having comprehensive consultation with the Department of Agriculture. This bill will deliver for agriculture and balance the needs of our farmers with the responsibilities we have to the environment. At the heart of the coalition government's mission to build a strong and prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia is less regulation for our agricultural sector. For too long, more regulation has been the default option for policymakers. During the previous government more than 21,000 new regulations found their way into national life, with poorly designed and inefficient regulation imposing unnecessary costs on each and every Australian. This is true of their approach to agriculture, a sector they lack the capacity to understand.

We have ensured through previous omnibus repeal day bills that Australia's biosecurity arrangements have been reformed to provide greater flexibility to manage biosecurity risks. We have reduced compliance associated with illegal logging due diligence requirements. We have removed the requirement for tail tags for cattle destined for the European Union and we have improved access to export terminals for grain exporters. Importantly, through making space for agriculture, we have ensured that our farmers are better prepared than ever to make the most of the Japan-Australia Economic Partnership Agreement, the Korea-Australia Free Trade Agreement and, of course, the China-Australia Free Trade Agreement. These are agreements that will deliver benefits for Australian farmers and the agricultural sector next year, the year after and for very many years into the future. Through cutting red tape and reducing the regulatory burden on our farmers we have continued to prepare them to take advantage of these historic free trade agreements. The Labor Party, as I have said earlier, adopts the same view on ChAFTA as it does on reducing regulatory burden on Australians. The free trade agreement with China will deliver unprecedented opportunities to our agricultural sector.

In the same way as this government are committed to cutting red tape, we are resolved to dropping the barriers of trade between Australia and the world's most populous nation, China. As I said earlier, agriculture is a key pillar of our national economy. The future of Australia's prosperity is contingent on a strong and productive agricultural sector. Through this bill the government are taking steps to ensure continued productivity in that sector, alongside our efforts to open markets with free trade. If Labor is for free trade, they should be for deregulation. It is evident through their capitulation to their CFMEU masters that they lack the conviction and the commitment to the future of Australia's economic prosperity to reduce red tape here in Australia and through our trade agreements.

We in the coalition government are committed to our economy and to our farmers. That is why this bill cuts regulation in the agriculture portfolio. Importantly, part 2 of the bill will amend the Natural Resources Management (Financial Assistance) Act 1992 to abolish the Australian Landcare Council. In May 2014 the government announced that, to reduce unnecessary duplication and red tape, the ALC and the Natural Heritage Trust Advisory Committee—the NHTA Committee—would be consolidated into one committee, which is sensible policy reform. This section of the bill is utterly consistent with our promise to the Australian agricultural sector to reduce red tape and remove unnecessary duplication.

This bill also delivers on our promise for smaller, more efficient government, and that is true not only for the agricultural sector but also across all sectors of the economy. Crucially, since our election we have focused on facilitating growth in our business community, particularly our small business communities, through red tape reduction. We have implemented an easier monthly pay-as-you-go system for certain businesses. This has given businesses the ability to choose their own method to calculate their actual instalment income on a quarterly basis, which has delivered an annual compliance saving of a whopping $2.7 million. We have reformed the 457 visa program by streamlining the processing of sponsorship, nomination and visa applications. Through reforming sponsorship requirements we have reduced the time and, importantly, the cost to business. Through increasing the sponsorship approval period from 12 to 18 months for start-up businesses and through providing greater flexibility in relation to the English language testing and skill requirements we have delivered annual compliance savings of close to $30 million. We have also improved the ATO website so that six million Australians—over one-quarter of the population—can find relevant information more quickly, which has delivered an annual compliance saving of $48.5 million.

These are only some of the legislative reductions we have made in the business sector which, along with our commitments to fostering growth and jobs, have successfully created 300,000 new jobs since our election in September 2013. This bill is part of a sound and effective legislative agenda which at its heart believes in removing unnecessary legislation and reducing red tape. This bill is an essential part of the government's commitment to smaller, more efficient government. We are cutting the regulatory burden on businesses, reducing red tape for our community sector and delivering more room for individual enterprise.

Labor are unwilling to cut red tape because, fundamentally, they do not understand the culture of business or of individual enterprise, particularly small, family based businesses. Labor is addicted to big government, big unions and therefore, by definition, big taxes. The coalition government understands that what is required to foster growth and jobs in our communities is less regulation, not more. This bill seeks to remove the weeds left behind by Labor. It cuts back the overgrown and out-of-control regulatory burden facing Australians, and it creates space for enterprise to flourish.

This government is true to its word when it comes to cutting red tape and reducing the burden of regulation. On behalf of my constituents in Barker, I welcome the benefits that this omnibus repeal day bill will deliver across a broad range of portfolios of government, and I welcome further reductions in the size of government in Australia. I commend the bill to the House.

Gai Brodtmann (Canberra, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Defence) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak to the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015, a bill that Labor supports in the interests of reducing red tape and streamlining legislation. The majority of items in this bill relate to the repeal of spent and redundant acts and redundant provisions within acts; therefore, these are, of course, welcome reforms. That does not mean that they require the fanfare that those opposite demand on these red-tape repeal days. All governments have them, and so they should, but they should not demand applause, a standing ovation, for reducing red tape.

While I pledge my support for the removal of superfluous legislation, we must thoroughly make sure that that is exactly what it is: superfluous. I think back to when the last lot of repeal legislation was introduced to the House, and I remember a sneaky measure, a really underhand measure, where something was removed that was actually not redundant. It actually mattered a lot. It mattered a lot to many, many people. It mattered a lot to many people who work in this building: people who clean our offices, day in, day out; people who work alongside us—our colleagues.

What was done in the name of red-tape reduction was actually the repeal of the wages and conditions of cleaners who work for the Commonwealth, the cleaners of this building. These are some of the most vulnerable people in our workforce. For many of them, English is their second language, and many of them have few to no qualifications. Many of them are single mothers. This is aside from the fact that they are also some of the most modestly paid. Yet the repeal of the Commonwealth cleaners guidelines means that cleaners in Commonwealth buildings are, on average, $6,837.35 worse off a year. That is a huge amount of money for anyone, in anyone's language, let alone some of our lowest paid workers. It is an absolute disgrace.

I met with a group of Commonwealth cleaners here at parliament a couple of months ago. They were absolutely distraught, and they were absolutely desperate. They were so distraught that they took strike action out in front on the lawns here at Parliament House because they felt they had no other option, no other way of telling this government that what it has done is just not okay. Some of them are working for $2 an hour less for doing exactly the same job for the same amount of time, at exactly the same hours. And that comes on top of the fact that cleaners' wages have been frozen since July 2012. They deserve respect, they deserve fair wages and they deserve decent conditions.

The fact that the Commonwealth cleaners guidelines were cut as part of a repeal day highlights the need for scrutiny. In the end, it comes back to trust. This government has shown time and time again that it cannot be trusted. It cannot be trusted with hospital funding. It cannot be trusted with education funding. It cannot be trusted with pensions. It cannot be trusted with ADF pay. It cannot be trusted with dental care. The list goes on and on and on. It cannot be trusted with giving cleaners, some of the lowest paid workers in this country, decent pay and decent conditions. This government showed its true colours in last year's budget, and Australians have every right to feel sceptical about this government. That is why, on these repeal days, I also feel sceptical.

This repeal bill in particular includes amendments and repeals covering the Agriculture, Environment, Health, Indigenous affairs, Social Services, Treasury and veterans' affairs portfolios. This was part of a set of bills introduced as part of the government's so-called autumn repeal day. As I said earlier, the majority of the items in this bill relate to the repeal of spent and redundant acts and redundant provisions within acts—for example, the repeal of seven acts in the Agriculture portfolio which are all spent and redundant. Also, the Dairy Adjustment Act 1974, which enabled the Commonwealth to enter into arrangements with the states for dairy adjustment programs, is being repealed. Given that the period for approval of a new agreement lapsed in 1977, no agreements are currently in place and all payments have been made, so this act is redundant.

In the Treasury portfolio, five acts are being repealed, all of which are spent and redundant. For example, the International Monetary Agreements Act 1959, which related to an increase in Australia's quota in the International Monetary Fund and an increase in the capital stock of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, is being repealed. Given that these transactions have already happened, this act is also redundant.

In the Social Services portfolio there is the removal of a number of indexation provisions that are spent, as they have passed their date of effect and, as a result, are no longer needed in legislation. These are a couple of items where elements are redundant or spent, and they are no longer up to date.

But there are two items in this bill that do have deregulatory savings. The first relates to the removal of the requirement to sign a statutory declaration when submitting a compensation claim under the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995. Instead, the claimant is able to declare that the information provided is true and correct, using existing forms required for the process. This is estimated to generate $41.4 million in deregulatory savings.

The second relates to the granting of greater access to aggregated information under certain social services legislation to the public, where that information does not disclose information about a particular person. This will enable greater access to information for use by researchers and the general public. This is estimated to generate $3,000 in savings. So the total amount of deregulatory savings in this bill, $41.4 million, is less than 10 per cent of the $475.7 million in savings that have been reported since the last so-called repeal day, in October 2014.

The last so-called repeal day was when those absolutely outrageous, brutal attacks were made on the cleaners that clean our offices—our colleagues, who work alongside us in this House and who are some of the lowest paid workers in this country. Quite often English is not their first language. Quite often their education levels are not particularly high and, from meeting many of them, I know that a lot of them are doing it tough, on their own, as single mums trying to bring up their kids and to give them a decent start in life and a decent education. What does this government do? It cuts their wages, and it does so under the guise of a red-tape repeal day.

Measures that were described in the Parliamentary Secretary's statement last week—such as the use of electronic devices in flights, removing duplicative record-keeping requirements for psychologists or the removal of the requirement for trucks to have spare spray suppression devices—are not being discussed as part of this bill. The removal of spent and redundant acts, spent and redundant provisions within acts and the correction of spelling and punctuation in legislation is an ordinary process of government. The elevation of this activity to the status which this government gives it is simply not warranted and it is unnecessary.

The fanfare, the standing ovation and the round of applause that is expected when these repeal days occur is just breathtaking. I say: get on with the job of deregulation—necessary deregulation that will not leave people worse off, like last year's sneaky measure that was introduced into the repeal day. It should be deregulation that does not leave cleaners, some of the lowest paid workers in the country, worse off and that does not leave single mothers who are trying to do the right thing by their children worse off. They are working hard, trying to keep food on the table, trying to keep their kids educated, and they are doing it on their own. Do not attack them on repeal days. Do not attack their wages. Do not attack their conditions. For God's sake, be fair to these people who are doing it tough. If you are going to have a repeal day, then please do not bore us with the so-called fanfare about it. But, most importantly, do not attack the lowest paid workers in this country in the process.

Rowan Ramsey (Grey, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015 and related bills. This brace of bills and amendments delivers on election-day commitments made by the coalition to cut red and green tape, wherever we can, out of the Australian economy. It is worthwhile noting that this legislation adds to the delivery of a long list of achievements for this coalition government, including cutting taxes—the mining and carbon taxes, in particular—and stopping the boats. I notice that the minister who had responsibility for that achievement, Minister Morrison, is now at the table. That has enabled Australia to take a very strong and positive position in dealing with refugees from Syria. The coalition's achievements also include free trade agreements with Japan, Korea and China—unbelievably at this stage still not clearly supported by Bill Shorten and the Labor Party. I hope they will get to the right place in a very short time. These were wonderful achievements by Minister Andrew Robb. There has also been a record infrastructure spend around Australia. All the while, the government has been taking the tough decisions to begin the job of budget repair and pulling the economy back from the precipice.

This is a substantial but far from exhaustive list of achievements that were delivered under Tony Abbott's leadership. It was a prime ministership attacked from day one by so many influential people in our community, many of whom consider themselves to be learned, and many very poisonous pens in the press. It led to a situation where many Australians developed a personal dislike for or vitriol towards the former Prime Minister. It is most unfortunate. It is a very sad thing for him personally to lose the prime ministership, and for his family and his staff and his friends and colleagues in this place. It is a very sad that he was not given the opportunity to defend his record at an election. But the party room took the collective decision that the risk of conceding the next election to the Labor Party was too great—not for the Liberal Party but for Australia. The risk of handing power back to the economic vandals that placed Australia in the precarious position we faced on coming into government was too great. It is certainly a position we have not fully recovered from at this stage. Progress has been made, but there is still a long way to go. I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank the member for Warringah, Tony Abbott, for leading us back to government, for giving Australia chance before it was too late, for delivering a tough but necessary agenda and for giving his every waking moment to the country he loves, Australia. Tony, you will be judged kindly by history.

As part of our election commitments, when all these things are delivered on, this legislation will take the total deregulatory bonus to $2.45 billion for Australia. That is enormous—$2.45 billion per annum from getting the government out of the road of ordinary Australians at work and play and getting rid of waste. It is a great thing. There is still plenty of work for us to do in this area. There is still plenty of low-hanging fruit. We will continue to deliver these savings to the Australian economy, lifting the burden of red and green tape from ordinary Australians. As a result, I think for the very first time a full audit of government services has revealed a drop in the cost of federal regulation. It is an amazing thing. Everything else goes up and up, but we have been able to wind back the total cost of regulation. Following this repeal day and the full implementation of its content, more than 10,300 legislative instruments will have been axed and we will have removed 2,700 acts of parliament. Unbelievable. Other governments have promised but never really delivered in this area. We have delivered and we will continue to do so.

So what do some of these reforms in the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015 mean to individuals and to businesses? Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, I am sure you have bought a mobile phone at some stage, certainly I have. Fair dinkum, you need to take a day off to go and buy a mobile phone. There is a saying we have in the CFS—I am a CFS volunteer—'hurry-up and wait', and so it applies to buying a mobile phone. You would think it would be so easy to just go and pick the thing out but then you sit down and they say, 'I am sorry, Sir, we are just going through this and we are going through that.' It takes forever. You cannot believe it. It should be so simple. You would think in half an hour you would be able to buy a mobile phone. We will make easier to perform identity checks. It will speed up so, Mr Deputy Speaker Mitchell, that will give you an opportunity to go fishing for the rest of the day after you buy your next mobile phone.

Of course we will have already noticed that we are allowed to use our personal electronic devices on flights. I had always wondered why it was that we could not use electronic devices on aeroplanes. I have never flown a jet liner it must be said but I can fly a light aeroplane and I have never come across a pilot that said it made it a scrap of difference whether or not we are on the phone. I actually thought it was about public etiquette. For those of us that have been to Japan, let me tell you, you rarely, I have to say, see a passenger on a Japanese train that has not got their mobile phone in their hand, furiously texting away. But I tell you what, you never hear one ring and you will never hear them pick up the phone and make a call because it is considered to be such poor etiquette. I had wondered over the years if perhaps the airlines just did not want people shouting on their phones in aeroplanes and upsetting the rest of the people on the flight. Anyway, we can now use our personal electronic devices in flight.

Improvements to the myGov site will save people's precious time. Time is the one thing that we all are given a certain amount of in our lives and wasted time is the worst time of all. Anything that cuts the time we have to waste trying to deal with government departments is a good move so there will be improvements to the myGov website.

Businesses will benefit from improved flexibility for pay-as-you-go payments by allowing monthly payers to actually calculate their contributions on a quarterly basis. This will not make any difference to the total income of the government from these payments; it will just make it simpler and easier for all those thousands of people running small businesses out there to deal with the requirements of government.

We will be removing idiosyncratic regulations applying singularly to the federal interstate registration of B-doubles—hooray say all of my truckies, the truckies that carry the nation. They have been driven absolutely spare by the inconsistent rules across the nation in relation to the transport industry and it costs them millions. This is just one small reform but in this case the changes will deliver more than $8 million worth of savings to the industry. Anything we can do to make their job easier is, in the end, a benefit for all Australians.

The ag sector is a sector I have been closely associated with all my life. We bring a number of livestock products into Australia that are low biosecurity risk. Because they are low-risk, they will be excluded from the onerous scrutiny of APVMA, a very fine organisation. It provides a double benefit in that it frees up the APVMA to do the important things, the things they should be doing. The APVMA will deliver in a more timely manner the services and registration of new chemicals, for instance, that farmers need to run modern and efficient properties. An added benefit will be that it will make it easier for those people importing those products that essentially are low-risk and do not deserve the level of scrutiny they are receiving at the moment. If you keep looking at a product as it is brought into Australia and over a long period of time there are no complications with it then it obviously makes sense to take it off the high level of scrutiny agenda.

Students trying to attend a tertiary education in the city are a very important part of my electorate. I have spoken many times in this place about the difficulties that country students face in trying to deal with a $20,000-difference in the cost of doing a degree by dint of the fact that they have to leave home to attend the institution. For them to juggle the financial commitments of attending those institutions, they often have to juggle jobs, sometimes numerous jobs and inconsistent part-time jobs. So students will be given new access online to be able to change their details for the government benefits they receive. It is a very important reform. As their circumstances change on a day-by-day basis, they can log on and keep the system up to date to make sure they are not infringing the law. It is estimated that this will save $7.8 million.

There will be changes to NAPLAN. NAPLAN will be delivered online, which will save $9.7 million. These last two changes I have just detailed are harvesting the technology dividend. It is so important that we should. We feel sadness throughout our community as we see jobs disappear that have employed people in our communities for all our lives. The perfect example is the local banks. Once you would go in and there would be 10 or 15 people in the branch, scurrying round, all with different jobs to do. Now of course we do pretty much all of our banking outside that building. If the bank's branch still exists, there are two or three people in there. We do not go in to get a roll in cash; we get that out of the hole in the wall outside. When we want to pay bills, we sit down on our computer at home and press the buttons and the bills are paid. I mourn the loss of those jobs but they simply make no sense any more. Just as with the students online and the changes to NAPLAN, that is about government adjusting its services to modern technology and taking advantage of the dividend that modern technologies provide. It is fitting and the right thing to do, and we should always be on that edge, making sure that we get the best performance possible from the federal government and consequently for the community at large.

So many of these individual items embraced in the three repeal day bills up to this time have taken advantage of that dividend. We have looked at old and antiquated legislation—things that simply do not have to be there anymore, sometimes. Governments have said—in fact, I think the previous Labor government said—'We will repeal a bill for every new regulation that comes in.' Unfortunately, they got sidetracked and that never happened. I do not think it was a lack of intent. Government is a very difficult business. It can be overwhelming, and the demands of the day mean you do not get to tidy up the ends, which is why it has been so important that this government has dedicated somebody to that role. It started off, of course, with the member for Kooyong.

So I commend the bills. It is government at work and getting on with the business, and I look forward to the opposition supporting the individual changes required to achieve the overall reduction of red and green tape in the Australian economy.

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

It is wonderful to be able to get up today and speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015, the Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015 and the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2015. They build on a commitment that this government made prior to the election that we would have a laser-like focus on removing red tape that had grown disproportionately out of control for many years and increased somewhat under the former Labor government.

The member for Grey made a good point: that, prior to the 2007 election, that Labor government made what I think was probably an earnest commitment that, for every regulation brought in, one regulation would be repealed. After six years of Labor government, we ended up with 22,000 additional regulations. So whilst the commitment may have been earnest at the beginning—some people would doubt that, but I will give the Labor Party the benefit of the doubt—it was just an example of the size of government and the red tape that we impose on all sectors of our economy, whether it be the private sector, not-for-profits or government institutions in their interactions with Australian individuals. In each one of those cases, the inexorable growth of regulation just strangles the capacity of our country to grow and the entrepreneurialism of our citizens.

That is why we made a commitment to ensure that red tape was something that we would have an absolute focus on removing at every opportunity, and this, our third set of red tape repeal days, has reaped a huge dividend for this country: $2.45 billion worth of regulatory costs have now been taken out of the economy—subject, of course, to all of the bills that form part of omnibus repeal day being passed.

But why are we doing it? Why are we spending time in this parliament repealing red tape and, more importantly, why have ministers and individual members of parliament like me spent hours and hours and hours identifying what those regulations are and what those impediments to growth in our economy are? It is because we want to unshackle our citizens and small businesses and encourage them to do what they do best, because we have a very basic philosophy on this side of the House, and that is that governments do not create jobs and wealth; individual citizens do. If we can do more to unshackle them and help them realise their ambitions, that is something that is extraordinarily worthy.

That is why I am disappointed and despondent when I watch those opposite mocking and belittling individual changes here, because the whole reason why red tape builds up over years and years and years is that incrementally one rule after another after another after another after another builds up, although it might only be small in an individual case. That is why you must have the discipline in government to have a laser-like focus, identify each of those individually and remove them, and that is what this government is doing.

I was having a conversation with my father, who was a small business operator. He ran many, many small businesses, and he said to me, 'Michael, when I came to Australia in 1966, it was a great country, full of opportunity,' and he has realised those opportunities himself. He said that, if he thinks about all of the additional laws and rules—the reams and reams of legislation and regulation at a federal, state and local government level—and adds all of those up, it still has not resulted, in his view, in Australia being much of a better place than it was when he arrived here in 1966. Is our country that much greater because of it? Are our citizens freer because of it? Of course not.

Governments at all levels feel as though for every problem there must be a regulatory or legal solution. Often what we end up doing is putting in place rules and regulations that do not have any practical impact and do not really address the problem that they seek to address. All they are is just another aspect of the law that private citizens, small businesses, not-for-profits and charities need to adhere to.

I was speaking recently to a local NGO who employs somebody full time effectively just to deal with the rules and regulations that they must adhere to in all of their program delivery. I am sure that all of those rules and regulations were extraordinarily well intentioned when they were put in place, but it is quite extraordinary to me that that organisation must employ somebody full time on something that in no way furthers the goals of that organisation.

I speak to countless small businesses—often husbands and wives, business partners, who absolutely work their guts out. If you are in a small business, you understand a few things. If you are the owner, you pay the rent first, you pay your employees second, you pay your taxes third and then, if there is a little money left over, you pay yourself. Those small-business owners will often be up at five in the morning, they will work all day and then when they go home, instead of spending time with their children, instead of spending time doing things they want to do, the countless things, they will sit at their desk and deal with paperwork. It might be BAS or some other form or compliance activity that the government requires. We are literally draining the energy out of our entrepreneurial small businesses.

I am not going to go chapter and verse through all of the items in this omnibus repeal day suite of bills. The member for Grey did it very well and did it in a more entertaining fashion than I can. So I want to focus on and continue to focus on why we have such a dedication to repealing red tape. It is not sexy. It is not something that is going to capture headlines in the newspapers. The Labor Party talk about it being the ordinary course of business. They say: 'Why is the government making such a big deal out of this? Why is the government trying to pat themselves on the back? Well, today is not an exercise in patting ourselves on the back. Today and the previous two repeal days are an exercise in showing our dedication and commitment to the Australian people in getting off their backs. Government should really only do for people what they cannot do for themselves. Government should not unduly burden citizens and individuals with rules and regulations that add little value to their lives or little value to their businesses.

There is a startling statistic from 2014. In the burden of government regulation index that is put together by the World Economic Forum, Australia ranked 124th out of 148 countries. Now, we are a great country. As the foreign minister often says, 'We are a top 10 nation.' We are in the top 10 in a range of indices, whether it be economic growth, whether it be GDP, whether it be GDP per capita in particular, whether it be entrepreneurialism, science, technology or development. But to be 124th out of 148 is absolutely outrageous. This was also highlighted by a report which said that Commonwealth government regulation alone—and I am not including state governments or local councils which are bad as well—was costing the economy $65 billion or 4.2 per cent of GDP. So it is no surprise that we were 124th out of 148, but we must therefore be dedicated over time to improving it.

In three repeal days, we have repealed $2.45 billion of red-tape costs. I can tell you having been on the backbench committee involved in the red-tape repeal days, we have absolutely sweated blood to find that $2.45 billion, literally going through regulations line by line and speaking to small businesses whether it be a business in pharmaceuticals or a manufacturer—the myriad of regulation. It is quite difficult for politicians to understand some of the regulations, particularly the very technical regulations that our manufacturers or others need to deal with. So, to get to $2.45 billion was incredibly hard.

Each repeal day that we have as a government will incrementally get more difficult. We will have to be more ambitious. We will have to search harder. It is the old adage—the low-hanging fruit has gone now and we will have to be even more dedicated. But after all that work, $2.45 billion is extraordinarily exciting and it is a lot more than we promised. We promised $1 billion and we are now up to $2.45 billion. But that is $2.45 billion out of a cost to the economy of $65 billion. So we have barely touched the sides, but we have made an earnest attempt.

Governments from both sides of this chamber for the last 40 years have piled on rules and regulations, and we are strangling the entrepreneurial nature of this country. Every single road block that you put in somebody's way when they want to chase their own idea and start their own small business is an absolute tragedy for this country. This country has been built on the foundations of an entrepreneurial spirit, and risk-taking has been in our DNA.

I fear that the more government shackles our country, the more people will say: 'You know what? Why am I going to risk my house? Why am I going to mortgage my own home to start a new business, when I can get a cushy job somewhere and take no risks. It will be a hell of a lot safer and it will be better for my family?' That is logical thinking, but that is not what creates wealth for this country. What creates wealth for this country is people saying: 'I have an idea. I see a gap in the market. I see boundless opportunities and I am going to risk everything to take it.' It is those sorts of people who built this country and it is those sorts of people who exist today, but we have to encourage them even more. I am very proud to be part of a government that has shown the dedication to do something that, as I said, is not sexy. I do not get constituents walking up to me in the street saying, 'Michael, thank you for repealing X, Y and Z regulation.' It does not happen. That is why it has been ignored for so many years. This is what good government is about: it is about doing what is right for this country, even when you know you are not going to get kudos for it.

I can visit my father now and say to him, 'Dad, we have repealed 890 Commonwealth acts of parliament,' in response to his words to me that, from the time he came to this country in 1966, the endless rules, regulations and laws, in his view, have not been what has made this country better. This country has been made better despite those rules and regulations, not because of them. I can say to him that we are starting the process to change this inexorable decline that Australia has gone through in shackling our people with red tape. I am very proud to be part of this government and I am very proud of this repeal day today. (Time expired)

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I join with the member for Deakin in saying that I, too, am delighted today to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015 and other key red tape reduction measures announced by the government in its third repeal day package. I am proud that we continue the good work begun last year of removing inefficient regulation that cripples our economic growth. However, I am even prouder of the contribution this legislative bundle and its related measures will make to improving the lives of our hardworking small business people.

In 2013, there were 7,165 businesses employing fewer than 200 staff and 13,690 non-employing businesses in Higgins. When I see this legislation, I think of the many men and women in my electorate who rise early and work late to keep their businesses afloat and who employ people, pay taxes and provide essential community services. I think of the printers, the pharmacists, the restaurant owners, the hairdressers, the retailers and the myriad of other small business people whom it has been my privilege to meet as the local member for Higgins.

Red tape repeal days mean that these people get to work on their businesses rather than on wasteful compliance activities. They get to go home to their children rather than search opaque websites for hard-to-find help with government requirements. They get to engage with their customers and communities rather than wait in queues. All of this helps people personally and makes for a more productive Australia.

The coalition has already introduced a raft of measures to help businesses: 402,000 small businesses no longer have to interact with the pay-as-you-go instalment system; there is now a one-stop shop for environmental approvals; and the mining and carbon taxes have been repealed. In addition to this, the government has sought to reduce the duplication of regulatory arrangements where existing international standards from trusted bodies have already been met. For example, Cochlear, the manufacturers of the bionic ear, is able to have all of its products verified under the European Union certification process and does not have to also seek TGA certification in addition to the European certification. This is saving both the manufacturer and the TGA valuable time and money and, most importantly, in the case of Cochlear, gets necessary products out to the people who need them in a shorter period of time.

Imagine a small business owner who runs a high-tech printing shop in my electorate. It is a local institution, but the owner has a heavy load. On top of managing staff, property, printing operations, service and the organisation's finances, this printer must submit her tax paperwork, including her PAYG instalments. On top of this, she has a raft of other compliance related work, such as that relating to two 457 visa workers she wants to hire, who will fulfil roles which are both critical to the business and cannot be filled locally. This is only the tip of the iceberg of her administration and compliance activities, most of which is done on weekends or in the dead of night. She struggles to juggle her time running the business with her time with her family, so every second liberated is of incomparable value. So far our measures have helped her by establishing a small business helpline to give advice on employee wages and workplace laws. Changes to SuperStream regulations mean that it is now easier for her to pay her employees' super contributions. Legislation has also been introduced to reduce the administrative burden on employers, like our small business owner, who can now administer paid parental leave payments directly through the Department of Human Services.

Our third repeal day package takes our promise to reduce burdensome regulation even further by making it easier for our small business owner to be 457 visa compliant, with the streamlining of the processing of sponsorship, nomination and visa applications. She will also find business easier in several ways over time. She can find information from the tax office more readily and can more easily keep her personal details up to date for online government dealings. It is even easier for her to buy prepaid mobiles for her business. The government has also announced that it will expand access to the Small Business Superannuation Clearing House, meaning that 27,500 businesses will benefit from a cost-free solution to meet their super obligations. This all leads to a happier and healthier small business owner. I have no doubt that her children will also benefit. Furthermore, it makes great economic sense to free up time from low-value compliance to high-value business activities and time with family. One step at a time, we can strike a more sensible balance for our hardworking small business owners, who account for nearly one-half of private sector industry employment.

The coalition's economic agenda centres on building a stronger, more diverse economy, reducing taxes and creating jobs. Removing red tape is at the heart of this agenda. However, it is also at the heart of a value set which encourages us to see small business people as invaluable contributors to our communities, and that we should not be putting unnecessary obstacles in their way. Business and individuals suffer unnecessary costs each day due to poorly designed regulation. By reducing this burden, business can grow and create more jobs. Our attitude to this stands in stark contrast to the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government. Under Labor, much was promised on the management of regulations, including a promise to remove a piece of compliance for every one that was added. Yet, at the end of the day, we saw 21,000 new regulations put in place. This was not sustainable.

Step by step, in a practical way, the coalition has sought to make it easier for business to do business, to employ people and to lift local communities because we know that every change counts. The red-tape reduction measures that I have discussed today are just one element of the coalition's third repeal day agenda. These measures go hand in hand with the repeal of outdated legislation. The Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill we are debating today will, along with its related legislation, repeal 890 Commonwealth acts. In repealing redundant acts, we help businesses, community organisations and families who waste valuable time sifting through outdated regulations to try to determine whether they still apply.

The bill repeals acts in a number of areas including agriculture, environment, Prime Minister and Cabinet, Treasury and veterans' affairs. Today I will not undertake to summarise the legislation's many components, but I will point out that the estimated cumulative savings so far from red-tape reduction now amount to around $2.45 billion. What you are seeing with this legislation is practical government at work: doing the job that it should be doing. That is why we were elected to be a government in this place: to make sure that we do not block the aspirations of Australians, but in fact encourage those aspirations. We do that with this bill, and I commend it to the House.

Scott Morrison (Cook, Liberal Party, Minister for Social Services) Share this | Link to 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.

Lucy Wicks (Robertson, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am pleased to rise in support of the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill and associated bills, which as we have been hearing on this side of the House have a direct and positive impact on Australian industries and our communities. Today, the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill—which is before the House along with the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2015 and the Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015—will further clean up the Commonwealth's statute books by repealing acts and amending unnecessary and outdated provisions. The Spent and Redundant Instruments Repeal Regulation 2015 is also part of the repeal day package.

Cutting red tape is at the heart of the coalition's commitment to build a stronger, more prosperous economy and a safe, secure Australia. To quote the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Christian Porter, who has done some outstanding work in this area:

Regulation should only remain in force for as long as necessary.

This package of legislation before us today is not about removing protections. This is, rather, the application of common sense. Subject to the parliament, these bills will collectively repeal over 890 Commonwealth acts. The Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill alone will amend or repeal 14 acts across portfolios, some of which are spent and redundant or have remained on the Commonwealth's statute books long beyond the date of fulfilling their purpose. Other acts being amended or appealed have provisions that were superseded by other legislation many, many years ago.

These measures, part of the coalition's third repeal day, build on the $2.1 billion in red tape reduction decisions we made in October last year. We set a target of reducing the regulatory burden by $1 billion a year. Not only did we exceed that net target by more than double in our first year, but we are well on our way to meeting a new target of $1 billion worth of deregulatory decisions this year. Compare this to the previous Labor government's record, when Commonwealth regulation was costing Australians approximately $65 billion per year—a remarkable 4.2 per cent of GDP. Labor introduced more than 975 new or amending pieces of legislation and over 21,000 additional regulations. This is despite Kevin Rudd's 2007 promise of a 'one regulation in, one regulation out' policy. As a result of six years of Labor's red tape, last year we ranked 124th out of 148 countries in the world competitiveness index, which describes the burden of government regulation.

Let's not forget the carbon tax and the mining tax—two business-destroying, ineffective taxes now scrapped by the coalition. As we know, Labor introduced the world's biggest carbon tax, which drove up prices, reduced growth and added red tape for over 76,000 businesses or organisations each year. If left in place, this would have cost the Australian economy a cumulative $1.3 trillion by the middle of this century. Of course, after voting time and time again to stop us abolishing the carbon tax, now Labor wants to bring back the carbon tax if they are elected. I have to say, this is something that is of great concern to businesses and residents in my electorate on the Central Coast. Small businesses talk about the choice between paying the carbon tax and the increased electricity bills or employing another young person in their business. People in the streets of the Central Coast came up and spoke to me about their concerns about the increasing prices of electricity. Make no mistake: this is a very real issue on the streets of the Central Coast.

In relation to the mining tax, we were told it would raise $12 billion over its first two years. Instead it raised less than three per cent of what was promised but added record levels of red tape and discouraged investment in Australia. This sort of unnecessary red tape is a contributing factor to Australia's productivity challenge. It reflects Labor's fundamental inability to understand business and the value of individual enterprise.

The Productivity Commission has previously estimated that reducing red tape will boost national GDP by $12 billion a year. Across industry it is believed red tape accounts on average for four per cent of business costs, so I am pleased to be part of a coalition government that is tackling this head on. It means we are now able to, with a very high degree of accuracy, publicly report to parliament a downturn in the total amount and cost of federal regulation. In fact, the government will have repealed more than 10,300 legislative instruments and introduced legislation to repeal over 2,700 acts of parliament. Ultimately, cutting red tape is about Australians spending less time filling out paperwork, less time waiting in queues and less time searching for information.

The New South Wales government have also made moves to cut red tape because they know the benefits to the local economy. When the state government announced recently they would cut more than $815 million in red tape, the New South Wales Business Chamber was full of praise. The chief executive, Stephen Cartwright, described it as 'a significant achievement that will make it easier for small businesses to grow and employ more people'. He described red tape as an 'incredible burden on small business operators' and said that regulations of all levels of government were 'combining to create billions of dollars in compliance costs for businesses each and every year'.

This desire expressed to see small businesses grow, thrive, prosper, succeed and create even more jobs and more opportunities for people right around Australia reflects my own passion, particularly in my electorate on the Central Coast, where we see 30,000 commuters leave early in the morning to Sydney or Newcastle and return home late at night to their families because currently that is where their job opportunities are. We see this measure, this suite of bills, and our policy to reduce red tape as vital in helping us boost confidence in our local economy. It is also something that is central to our commitment to deliver our Growth Plan for the Central Coast, which is about delivering more opportunity for people to live and to work in our local region.

Red tape is one of those things that hold small businesses back and that hold back opportunities in our local community. In fact, one of our community leaders, Sean Gordon, the CEO of the Darkinjung Local Aboriginal Land Council, spoke recently about this in The Australian. He spoke about the red tape that he faced at almost every turn while working on a major project on the Central Coast. Indeed, I am advised that Indigenous service delivery has, under Labor, had to navigate 200 Indigenous related programs administered by 17 Commonwealth agencies. I understand that each program had its own application form and processes. In the resources sector the member for Bradfield, earlier in the chamber, recounted a story of one particular project that apparently required 4,000 meetings before approval was granted, and ultimately 12,000 state and 300 Commonwealth conditions were placed on that project.

I will now briefly outline some of the ways that we are making life easier for businesses, particularly businesses on the Central Coast, by cutting the red tape burden. We have established the Fair Work Ombudsman's Small Business Helpline to assist business owners with advice on employee wages and workplace laws. There is improved communication from the Australian Taxation Office with small business through a new digital news and information service. The ATO's website is also being improved to make it easier to browse. We have introduced a bill to amend the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 to reduce compliance burdens. This includes the surely common sense removal of unnecessary requirements relating to reporting food related product safety incidents. We have improved the pay as you go instalment system by changing the entry and exit thresholds, meaning that certain small businesses will no longer have to interact with the pay as you go instalment system. We have amended intellectual property laws to make them more efficient and less complex by reducing unnecessary regulatory requirements.

Many industries like aged care, an important industry in my electorate on the Central Coast, have also been crying out for support in specific areas. So I am pleased to report that under this government's reforms we have started simplifying the proposed accommodation pricing process which removes the requirement for aged-care providers to follow a complex, detailed process in setting prices. We do this because, with an ageing population, we need to ensure that aged-care providers are able to get on with doing what they do best without being weighed down by paperwork and red tape. We have scrapped complex certification requirements of aged-care facilities, including those that duplicate state building requirements under the Building Code of Australia. We have streamlined the forms for the Aged Care Approvals Round process, reducing the overall size of the application forms by half.

We have also taken measures that will result in millions of dollars in compliance savings for the disability services sector. In fact, I was pleased to be speaking in the Federation Chamber just this morning to confirm details about the full rollout of the NDIS on the Central Coast, which is significant and welcome news for our region. With the rollout of such a big project it is vital that we implement solutions to improve outcomes for people with disabilities and service providers. Among the changes as part of this legislation participants will be able to accept their Employment Pathway Plan on the Australian JobSearch website rather than using email or post. We have also streamlined the process for mergers and amalgamations of Australian Disability Enterprises, of which there are three in my electorate, for those looking to merge for viability and sustainability reasons. The Hearing Services Program's online portal will also be improved to enable real-time confirmation of client eligibility and automated application processing. This reduces record-keeping requirements, eliminating numerous paper forms and simplifying a variety of administrative tasks.

This government's commitment to repeal red tape is ongoing. Indeed, today earlier in this place, the Minister for Education introduced new legislation to streamline regulation, remove duplicate requirements and cut red tape for Australia's international education providers. The Education Services for Overseas Students Amendment (Streamlining Regulation) Bill 2015 removes unnecessary reporting from the act while protecting the high quality of Australia's international education sector. International education is Australia's largest non-resource export and generates an estimated 130,000 jobs throughout the country. Through this bill we are cutting unnecessary red tape to allow our institutions to focus on their core business and to be even more competitive in offering world-class education. The minister estimates it will generate $76 million a year in deregulatory savings for our education institutions. So it cuts red tape while improving Australia's reputation as a high-quality, world-class destination for students.

This is an issue particularly close to my heart, because we have a dream on the Central Coast to see our region known as a world-class region of excellence, not just for our beauty, not just for more local jobs and more businesses growing, thriving, succeeding and prospering, but also to see world-class excellence and world-class educational opportunities on the Central Coast. I am pleased to say that the University of Newcastle is currently promoting a wonderful proposal that would see a stand-alone Central Coast medical school and medical research institute, which is their dream, in the heart of Gosford in my electorate. It is outstanding opportunity for more students, not just on the Central Coast, but around Australia and beyond to be able to access and participate in world-class education right in the heart of the Central Coast.

In conclusion, I want to put on record one more thing. As the granddaughter of a farmer I want to indicate that this bill also helps slash red tape for cattle producers with the removal of the need for tail tags on cattle needed for processing for the EU meat market. From this month Australian producers are no longer required to use special lime-green tags on the tails of cattle produced for processing into beef exported to the EU. I have been advised that cattle producers will save up to $1 million a year just by the removal of the need for these unnecessary tags.

Like I said at the beginning of my contribution, this is common sense legislation. It is all part of the government's plan to make life easier for businesses and industry and, of course, for the Central Coast community. I commend the bills to the House.

Teresa Gambaro (Brisbane, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise in support of the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015, which, while it does not have a very exciting name, does so many positive things for many businesses and individuals in this country by improving the efficiency of government and cutting unnecessary red tape and costs to the Australian taxpayer. The bill is a whole-of-government initiative to amend or repeal legislation across seven portfolios. The bill brings forward measures to reduce the regulatory burden for businesses, individuals and the community sector that are the subject of an individual, stand-alone bill. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, Mr Porter, said in his second reading speech, this bill:

… will amend or repeal 14 acts across portfolios, some of which are spent and redundant or have remained on the Commonwealth statute books long beyond the date of fulfilling their purpose. Other acts being amended or repealed have provisions that have been superseded by other legislation years ago.

The bill also makes a number of amendments to legislation to reduce complexity and compliance costs.

It is often all too legitimate criticism that governments are too bureaucratic and inefficient. As to what it means for the business community, I hear much comment from the 30,000 businesses that I represent. Coming from a small-business background myself, I hear their lament. Often they say to me, 'If only government could operate more like business,' or make the more pointed criticism, 'If we ran our business the way government operates, we wouldn't have a business; we'd all go broke.' Regrettably, often what happens is that, when those opposite get into government, they do send the country broke, and it is up to us to clean up their mess. That is exactly what this bill is all about. It is about cleaning up the mess.

The coalition's goal is to make life easier for Australians and to make it easier for businesses to invest, to create jobs, to employ people and to grow the economy. Cutting red tape is about Australians spending less time in queues, less time filling out forms, less time searching for information and less time dealing with the duplication and the myriad of forms across different departments. Many businesses continually tell me that they are filling out the same information in a different format when they are asked for it by different government departments. Under the former Labor government, Commonwealth regulation was costing Australians approximately $65 billion. That is a staggering amount of money—4.2 per cent of GDP. The coalition set itself a target to reduce the regulatory burden by $1 billion a year. Not only did we do that; we doubled that target in our first year, and we are now on our way to meeting a fresh $1 billion target for 2015. On the government's third repeal day, which was on 18 March this year, we made a decision to decrease the $65 billion regulatory burden by $2.45 billion. To date, we have implemented $1.57 billion of that $2.45 billion, with $880 million to be implemented. I thank the Assistant Treasurer, the member for Kooyong, for all of the fantastic work that he did in that process. That is $2.45 billion in savings from cutting red tape, which is equal to every man, woman and child in this country putting $100 back into the national piggy bank.

What is concerning is that this whole process is the first time in Australian history that a Commonwealth government has undertaken a thorough and accurate stocktake of all of those federal regulatory costs and consistently measured and reduced the cost of Commonwealth government red tape on Australian businesses, organisations, families and individuals. As a result, Australia now has its most precise, comprehensive and transparent program to reverse the growing costs of red tape on the Australian economy. It is now more than a year since we started this concerted plan to reduce the regulatory burden on our society, because we recognise that, for far too long, Australians have suffered from poorly designed and excessive regulation.

There are six areas that we are streamlining and cutting red tape in that I want to focus on today: business, education, health, building and construction, individuals, and students. In the business sector, one of the key measures was implementing a much easier monthly pay-as-you-go system for certain businesses. Businesses choosing to use this method will now only need to calculate their actual instalment income on a quarterly basis. There are annual compliance savings there of $2.7 million. We have also improved the Australian Taxation Office website so that six million Australians can find relevant information more quickly. That has resulted in an annual compliance saving of $48.5 million. Other measures announced in the first year of cutting red tape included repealing the carbon and mining taxes, making other changes to the entry thresholds for pay-as-you-go instalments and expanding private sector access to the government's Document Verification Service. That resulted in a combined net red tape saving of $194.4 million. We also introduced a one-stop shop for environmental approvals, resulting in a net red tape saving of a staggering $426.3 million.

In the educational sector, we have developed an online national assessment platform which will deliver the National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy, NAPLAN, online. That is scheduled to be available from 2017 and will deliver an annual compliance saving of $9.7 million.

There are so many other good stories happening, particularly in the health area. A streamlined grant administration processes for the National Health and Medical Research Council and a range of other changes will result in a net red tape saving of more than $150 million. This will be very welcome news to the many medical research institutes that are based in my electorate and those particularly in Brisbane: QUT, the University of Queensland, the Queensland Institute of Medical Research and many, many other research bodies.

In the building and construction area, we have removed the costly and time consuming requirement for builders to be certified to Australian standard AS4801 or equivalent prior to applying for scheme accreditation. Unaccredited builders will now have the opportunity to undertake government funded building work where they are in a joint venture with an accredited company. They can operate under the partner's scheme accredited systems. That well be a very welcome relief to many in the construction industry.

For individuals, we have implemented additional functionality for myGov users to allow customers to update their details in one place using the myGov tell us once service to obtain secure and convenient access to online services with a single account and one set of credentials. Again, that has saved an enormous amount of money: $5.4 million. We have made identity checks easier for those many hundreds of thousands of people who are working in the retail sectors and for consumers when they purchase a new prepaid mobile phone. That has delivered annual compliance savings of $6.2 million. The myTax initiative reduces the amount of information 1.4 million users need to supply to the Australian Taxation Office when filing their e-tax forms each year. That has resulted in red tape savings of $156 million.

The government is making it easier for Australians to access government services. The changes will see Centrelink claimants able to check the status of their claims online. That will reduced the need to waste many minutes in direct follow-up interventions by phone or having to go in in person at a Centrelink service centre. Students will also be able to upload their course selections. Again, they can make some very flexible changes. They can do that in their own time and at whatever time they want to do that. Students who receive government payments are now able to change those details online. It will be very, very useful for those who are studying and receiving things like youth allowance. They will no longer be required to contact a call centre or attend a service centre. They can just go online. This will result in annual compliance savings of $2.7 million.

In undertaking this thorough and consistent stock take of all Commonwealth regulatory costs, the government has developed a map of the Commonwealth regulatory environment. What is surprising is that this is the first time in Australian history that a Commonwealth government has undertaken a thorough and accurate stock take—and it is a stock take—of all federal regulatory costs. It is consistently measuring and reducing the cost of Commonwealth red tape on Australian businesses, organisations, families and individuals.

What is equally surprising is that this is one of the few times that any country in the world has engaged in a rigorous and consistent process that allows for an absolutely accurate assessment of the total cost a national government imposes on the economy. The benefits of having an accurate measure of Commonwealth regulations is obvious in the now and, as I say, very important for ministers, departments, secretaries, regulators and policy officers. They will be able to get a detailed picture of what regulations the Commonwealth government has instituted through primary legislation, subordinate instruments and quasi-regulations.

Thanks to this process being undertaken by the coalition, Australia now has its most precise, comprehensive and transparent program to reverse the growing cost of red tape on the economy. It also provides an opportunity for the government to learn how to work more positively with business, community organisations and many other individuals. This has been very important and highly beneficial. Reducing red tape is not just about what we do within our own borders; it is also about other countries, it is about potential investors and it is also about importers and also about how we are perceived in terms of the ease of doing business in this country and how easy it is for overseas investors.

An unacceptable fact is that, according to the World Economic Forum's global competiveness index, Australia's competitiveness has declined during the course of the last decade. In 2013-14, the Australian economy was ranked 21st out of 148 economies, with the perception of those surveyed being that Australia was well behind in terms of global best practice when it came to the burden of government regulation. This is not a dynamic that this country can afford to have continue. This is exactly what Prime Minister Turnbull was talking about when he said:

The Australia of the future has to be a nation that is agile, that is innovative, that is creative.

We cannot achieve that outcome if our spirit of innovation is strangled by red tape.

This will be on ongoing process that the Turnbull government is committed to: reducing the regulatory burden for all Australians. We understand that in order to build a prosperous economy we must relieve the burden of red tape on businesses, community organisations, families and individuals. We must allow people and businesses to do what they do best without spending endless hours dealing with paperwork, waiting in queues or searching for information. They should be concentrating on market development, product development and staff development.

It is important that businesses, community organisations and others in my electorate of Brisbane contact me to see how reduce red tape so that we can continue to build a productive and prosperous economy for the benefit of all Australians. As to this, I want to highlight the fact that the Australian government annual deregulation report 2014 and the Australian government's Autumn repeal day 2015 overview can be downloaded at cuttingredtape.gov.au.

This is a much welcomed bill. It will make a huge difference to the many thousands of businesses, families and individuals in the electorate of Brisbane. I welcome this bill.

Alex Hawke (Mitchell, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to 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—

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

In a very long time.

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

Yes, in a very long time—that is a good point—when Wyatt Roy is ready to be Prime Minister, in 40 years time!

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

And they will be in government?

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

Yes, when they are ready to govern again, in 2048. When you are ready, please adopt these measures, because I will support you if you continue this process, and I think all members here will support you in that endeavour. We must as a parliament be committed to microeconomic reform, and we must be committed to deregulation and getting the government out of people's lives so that they can get on with what they want to do.

Wyatt Roy (Longman, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I commend the previous speaker, the member for Mitchell, on his contribution to this debate on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015 and related legislation. In this place few people have the same passion he does for small government. Small government is sometimes a contentious idea, but on this side of the House, on the Liberal side of the House, we recognise that the great prosperity is not found here in Canberra; it is found when our citizens have enterprise and are prepared to go out and take a risk and government is actually taken out of their lives so that they can have a go and make something of their lives. I think it is a very refreshing moment, standing here in the parliament today speaking not on new laws, not on new regulation, not on a new invasion into the lives of everyday Australians but on the removal of government from our lives so that our citizens can achieve their full potential and our nation can achieve significant prosperity because everyday Australians are freed from government and have the opportunity to start those new enterprising businesses, to create the new prosperity for our nation and ultimately create the jobs that all Australians need.

This is, in no small measure, a very bold initiative. The coalition government has a commitment to reduce red tape by over $1 billion every single year. That has a very practical impact on those enterprising businesses that our nation needs in order to thrive. We have seen some bizarre opposition from members opposite around these red-tape repeal days. This is the third red-tape repeal day on which members have had the opportunity to speak. While we on this side of the House believe that the Australian people are intelligent and capable and should be free to live their lives how they choose, the Labor members of this House, those members opposite, believe that there is no problem that the government does not have a solution for—if there are any challenges in our society then government must be at the heart of the response to those challenges. This is a very fundamental divide between the two sides of politics.

I agree with the previous speaker, the member for Mitchell, that should one day the Labor members, unfortunately, move from that side of the House to this side then they might consider continuing with this initiative and, instead of talking about how great it is that the parliament has passed new laws, talk about how great it is that the parliament has removed laws, regulation and red tape so that Australians are free to live their lives how they choose.

In a very practical sense, these red-tape repeal days have achieved a very positive impact for the nation and particularly for my community. For Packer leather, a business in Narangba, there were crazy regulations such that when they needed chemicals registered in Australia—chemicals that went through a very significant registration process in the European Union and the United States—they had to pay tens of thousands of dollars to have those chemicals re-registered in Australia, essentially to fill out an enormous amount of bureaucratic paperwork to achieve the same end. With these red-tape repeal days we have managed to remove that regulation, and now Packer can spend those tens of thousands of dollars employing more locals.

This is a business that is now radically expanding. It is a manufacturing business that is over 100 years old. It is manufacturing leather for iconic Australian brands—Sherrin footballs made of Kangaroo, and cricket balls, as well as the leather that goes into R. M. Williams boots. They were forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for the registration of and even the scientific measurements around their leather manufacturing machines imported from Italy. Of course, that regulation already occurred in the European Union. When they imported, they then had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for the same regulation here in Australia to achieve the same outcome. Common sense would say, 'If it's good enough for the European Union, it's probably good enough for Australia. Why don't we simply adopt those standards?' In these red-tape repeal days, we have moved towards initiatives like that, which, again, are saving this business thousands of dollars that it is reinvesting into employing locals.

One of the things that I have been very proud of about this initiative and this round of reform is that it has really embraced the grassroots of this reform package by going out into the Australian community and talking to as many businesses as possible about how we can find these red-tape reductions. One of the first instances that we saw in this process was when the Assistant Treasurer came up to Caboolture, which is in my electorate. We had a community forum, and Ian Rodgers from R&R Hire in Caboolture got up and spoke about a very complicated piece of regulation around the PPSA, which, in short, is a very complicated bureaucratic system where hire companies have to register their equipment. In effect, it had the unintended consequence that, if you hired out a piece of equipment—a pallet jack or something like that—to a company for a few months and the company you hired it out to went broke, the liquidators would come in and seize that asset that actually belonged to the hire company as if it belonged to the business that hired it. This placed a huge burden on hire companies across the entire country, particularly in my community. The paperwork involved with registering on the PPSA was unbelievable.

This is a reform that few countries around the world have managed. It has been put in the too-hard basket for many years. When Josh Frydenberg came up to Caboolture, Ian Rodgers stood up and started to explain this. As put of this package, we managed to introduce a reform bill into this parliament to change and remove those laws. That bill has now passed the Senate, and we have been able to remove a significant burden of red tape from not only local hire companies but also hire companies across Australia. That Caboolture company itself has just recently doubled its staff. That is a huge success. It really shows that, when we get government out of our lives, when we get a practical removal of red tape and regulation for those small businesses, which do not have many staff to deal with it, they can then invest in new staff, making their businesses more productive, and put those resources into marketing and advertising so that they can get more sales. In a very practical sense, this reform package is making a very big difference when it comes to jobs growth, both locally and nationally.

There are other examples of some practical reforms in this reform bill before the House. We are implementing easier monthly PAYG for certain businesses. Businesses choosing to use the new method will only need to calculate their actual instalment income on a quarterly basis, and that will mean annual savings of about $2.7 million. That is a very practical change. We are improving the ATO website so that Australians can find relevant information faster, and that will see annual savings of about $48.5 million. We are removing the requirement for heavy vehicle operators of B-double truck combinations registered under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme to fit additional spray suppression devices, which is giving us an annual saving of about $8.3 million. That is a very practical, simple change.

We are making identity checks simpler and easier for retailers and consumers when purchasing prepaid mobile phones. Everyone who has bought a prepaid mobile phone knows how annoying the paperwork is. This will make a very practical, real difference to that process, and that will give us annual savings of about $6.2 million.

Another initiative in this package is that students who receive government payments are now able to change their details online at a time that best suits them, without being required to contact a call centre or attend a service centre. I think everyone could understand how that is a very practical, simple change that will make a big difference in people's lives. It will deliver us a saving of about $2.7 million.

This reform initiative is a return to common sense. Here in Canberra, common sense often seems to be lacking, and it is very exciting to rise in the nation's parliament and talk about a very common-sense, practical reform that will get government out of the lives of everyday Australians and free them so that they can go out, have a go and invest in those businesses so that they can increase the productivity of our country and, ultimately, create more jobs for all Australians. For that reason, I strongly commend these bills to the House, and I look forward to speaking on the next package of reform of this government.

Natasha Griggs (Solomon, Country Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise also to join the member for Longman and others to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015. On this side of politics, we are all about small government. It is the DNA of the Country Liberal Party, which is the party I belong to that is in coalition with the government. The DNA of my colleagues throughout the coalition is all about small government. There is a place for regulation, legislation and government oversight, but where does it exist? It needs to be part of a deliberate, careful, considered mechanism to improve the business environment and the quality of life for individuals.

We often look at this the wrong way. We should not have a system where businesses and individuals strive to satisfy the needs of the bureaucracy. The system should be designed so that the bureaucracy and the legislation satisfy the needs of all Australians. That is what we on this side of the House are endeavouring to do. Every line on our law books should serve as a policy outcome. Every line, every paragraph and every subclause should be weighed up against one simple question. That question is: is this the most efficient way to achieve what we are trying to achieve? If anyone can identify a regulation, a part of a regulation or a system where the answer to that question is no, someone—either someone in this place, through a legislative mechanism, or someone in the bureaucracy—needs to go back to the drawing board and start with the end in mind. What is the outcome we are looking for here? What is the best way to achieve that outcome with the smallest burden of compliance?

The hundreds of thousands of pages of legislation we currently have on the books have not been shaped through this framework. Since the parliament first convened some 114 years ago, governments of all flavours have passed tens of thousands of bills. On top of that, their state and territory counterparts have been going through the same process. At the same time, local governments have also been going through these processes in their areas of responsibility. Each of those tens of thousands of pages of legislation, regulatory processes and protocols adds to the burden that individuals and businesses have to bear—not to mention being a burden for government to bear, since all these acts and laws need oversight and administration. Until this government was elected, no-one had ever gone through this tangle of red tape, these tens of thousands of pages, and weighed costs against benefits. No-one had done it.

I am happy to stand here as a member of the coalition government—the first government in Australia's history to do exactly that. When we were elected in 2013, we received a clear mandate from the Australian people and from the Australian business community to reduce the burden of excess regulation. I use the word 'excess' very deliberately. There is a role for regulation. Some laws protect us from crime, some laws protect the environment from pollution, we have regulations to make sure taxes are collected, and we have bureaucracies to ensure that people who are in need get assistance—the people who use Centrelink, for example. But, if a law is redundant, if a law is inefficient or if there is a better way for the intended outcome to be achieved, then the regulation needs to go.

Looking over the explanatory memorandum for the legislation we are considering here today, it is not hard to find fantastic examples of redundancy. You do not have to go far to find superseded legislation, cumbersome legislation, legislation which doubles up and legislation which is inefficient. A quick glance at the full page of abbreviations one needs to know in order to understand the legislation gives a pretty strong indication that something has gone wrong along the way.

Consider, if you will, the industry of beef production. In the Northern Territory, cattle production is the cornerstone of our economy—a cornerstone, I point out, that was without warning cast aside by the Labor government in 2011, but that is a story for another time. Modern farmers are professionals. They need to understand meteorology, chemistry, geography and animal husbandry. They are scientists striving to get the highest quality product possible from the resources they have available. They should not need to be lawyers as well. Yet there are six pieces of legislation on this list alone which deal directly with beef production: the Domestic Meat Premises Charge Act, the Export Inspection and Meat Charges Collection Act, the Meat Export Charge Act, the Meat Export Charge Collection Act, the Meat Inspection Act and the Meat Inspection Arrangements Act—and remember that these are just the federal regulations! The situation is especially absurd when you realise that large sections of the acts I just listed have been redundant since 2011—yet they still remain on our books.

Every unnecessary piece of legislation, every inefficient piece of legislation, is a compliance burden on all Australians. Every form a businessman or a businesswoman fills out in order to satisfy a bureaucracy represents time he or she is not spending developing their business. Can you imagine how many forms and how many layers of bureaucracy someone involved in beef production must come up against? Apart from those six acts, there was subsequent legislation—which left two layers of federal regulation in effect—in addition to all the state, territory and local government regulations.

I am immensely proud that legislation repealed by this coalition government is already saving $2.45 billion annually. Just in case you did not hear me correctly, I will repeat that: it is saving $2.45 billion. That is a lot of money. If this bill receives assent, a further 890 redundant or inefficient Commonwealth acts will be struck from the statute books. Health, agriculture, telecommunications, human services, transport—all of these industries will see compliance costs reduced. How many hundreds of thousands, or millions, of dollars has the beef industry spent navigating that maze of red tape I discussed a moment ago?

I am excited about this legislation, because it will free business up to do what it does best: employing people and generating wealth and jobs. Every single dollar that businesses do not spend on navigating bureaucracies and cross-checking redundant legislation is a dollar they will invest in their business—money they can use to buy new equipment or employ new staff.

Every hour a business operator does not have to spend deciphering lists of legislative acronyms or filling in the forms needed to satisfy the bureaucracies, which have been set up to oversee these laws, is an hour saved. It is an hour they will spend with their clients or staff developing their business and increasing productivity.

A good government appears when it is needed, does what needs to be done, and then gets out of the way and lets people get on with their business. That is what this government is all about.

We heard the member for Longman talking about one of the examples in this package of bills is simplifying the process for buying a mobile phone—identification for prepaid mobile phones. That is also helping our young people, because they are very big users of prepaid mobile phones.

I wish to reiterate that removing redundant legislation is an example of how we, as a good coalition government, are getting out of the way of business and letting people do what they need to do—that is, running their businesses, generating wealth and creating jobs. I commend the bills to the House.

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That was yet another good speech from the member for Solomon who talked about the benefit of government getting out of the way and letting business get on with the job that it does best: raising wealth and prosperity.

I heard a 'Hear, hear' from the Labor member for Rankin—he understands from his former role the need for government to get smaller and business to get bigger. He gets it—I wish a few of his colleagues on the other side understood that concept as well.

The Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015 is important, because it goes to the heart of what we are about as a coalition government—a good coalition government, a good Liberal-National government. This is a continuation of the good work started by the member for Kooyong when he was Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and continued by Christian Porter, the member for Pearce. As I say, this is very, very important legislation, because it takes in a whole-of-government initiative to amend or repeal legislation across nine portfolios.

There are more than 20,000 statutes, laws, regulations and bills on federal parliamentary books. I heard from some of the Labor members who were speaking in this debate that all this is about is removing apostrophes and semicolons, putting commas in place and seeing if full stops are totally needed. In one part of his speech on Monday, the member for Scullin talked about a saving of $3,000 in deregulatory costs and mocked it. That is emblematic of what was wrong with Labor—and I appreciate that the member for Scullin was not here at that time—between 2007 and 2013.

That $3,000 did not mean all that much to the member for Scullin; a million dollars did not matter all that much; a billion dollars or a thousand million dollars did not matter all that much. That is why we saw the debt and deficit rack up to record proportions. That is why, when we came into government after the 7 September 2013 election, we inherited a debt and deficit legacy, which saddled our children and grandchildren with a great burden of responsibility to lower it—which of course came back to the Liberal-Nationals to fix, as we always do. That is what Liberal-National governments do very, very well: we fix up the mess that we always, inevitably, inherit from Labor.

That $3,000—I might remind the member for Scullin that it does matter, because $3,000 here and $3,000 there adds up. He called them pennies—'If we look after the pennies,' he said in his Monday speech. That is true. They all add up and they add up to big amounts. This omnibus repeal day debate is so important, because it is a matter of adding up the pennies.

Pennies—or cents in today's terminology—turn into dollars. Dollars turn into billions of dollars. A penny saved goes a long way towards paying back the debt that we inherited. But it is not what we, as a Liberal-National government, inherited—if we inherited it, it might be okay—it is the taxpayers of this nation who inherited it. We have just got the job as the sensible people in the parliament to fix the mess.

It is not just about commas, semicolons and apostrophes; this is about dollars and cents. This particular bill brings forward a range of minor, some might say non-controversial measures to reduce regulatory burden for business, individuals and the community sector, and that is so important. We understand—as, in good faith, I know the member for Rankin does—the need to be able to get out of the way of business. You understand it, Member for Hughes, sitting in the chair. I have heard you many times in this place advocate passionately—

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He's going for an extension of time!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I might get an extension of time; I'm certainly hoping for that!

And I know the work you have done in conjunction with Professor Frank Zumbo to look at regulation, to see how we can reduce it, to see what we can do with such things as the Competition and Consumer Act. I know that is digressing a little bit from the legislation before us, but they are all the sorts of things that are going to help business get ticking along. They are all the sorts of things that are going to help us as a coalition government, as a parliament, as a nation to pay back the debt and deficit that we have been struck with.

There is a risk that this bill will not be considered ambitious enough. We have heard that from Labor members. But it is ambitious. It follows on from the successful repeal days put forward by the member for Kooyong. As we move along as a government, hopefully, these omnibus repeal days will not be ambitious as the previous one, because the art of good government is to get the regulations such that they streamline efficiency, to get the regulations such that business knows that it can perform the job it does on behalf of the nation and the taxpayers to ensure that things are going well. The economic parameters, policies and growth that we are attempting to put into place with every piece of legislation that we bring into this place and that we attempt to get through in the Senate goes to the very heart of that, goes to the very core of having good government and good business conditions.

We have been helped in part by good weather in regional areas. I know my electorate is at the moment looking better than it has looked for a long time. Hopefully, we will have a very good harvest. I know that my predecessor, Kay Hull, suffered a long drought—the Millennium Drought—which caused poor conditions even though we had the Howard government in place producing good economic reform and a regulation regime that was good for business. The weather was not kind. But now we have a perfect storm of opportunity energising enterprise, as the Minister for Small Business would say. We have reasonable weather conditions in our food bowls save, I have to say, the electorates of the member for Parkes, the member for Maranoa and a few others where it is a bit dry and they need a bit of rain. But overall, in the Riverina, the Mallee, the seat of the member for Murray and other areas where there is a great food bowl, we have conditions that, hopefully, with no more frosts and a bit more rain in late September and early October, will have a bumper harvest. That, coupled with the omnibus repeal day measures we are bringing in and, hopefully, passing through the lower house this week, will see regional Australia thriving and Australia prospering as well.

The member for Rankin understands that, when regional Australia is strong, so too is Australia.

Dr Chalmers interjecting—

He is nodding; of course he knows that. I know that he listens very carefully when regional members of parliament stand up and speak. I know that he would be pleased that, when we did have a leadership change this week, the new coalition agreement struck is going to benefit regional Australia. I know the former Prime Minister, the member for Warringah, understood regional Australia and worked very well with the member for Wide Bay, the Leader of the Nationals, but I am sure that the member for Wentworth will do the same. I am sure that he will respect the role that the National Party has always played, plays now and will continue to play in this parliament and in this nation to ensure that repeal days are successful, that policy is good for regional Australia and that we get on with the job of doing what is best as far as regulatory and economic reform are concerned.

The three bills are separate whole-of-government initiatives which deliver different outcomes. The Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015 will bring forward deregulation initiatives which reduce regulatory burden and repeal acts and provisions in acts which are no longer required. Sure, that does involve some grammatical fix-ups in the many statutes, legislation and bills on the books, but we need to get rid of some of those archaic, decades-old pieces of legislation and wordings that are no longer relevant.

The Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015 will repeal spent and redundant amending and repeal acts which were made in the decade of the 1980s. The measures within these acts have taken effect and do not contain any other substantive provisions, and that is fair enough.

The Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2015 will repair minor errors and oversights in Commonwealth consolidated acts and repeal spent or redundant provisions of acts. When I say 'minor errors' I mean that sometimes, when Labor was in power in the six sorry years that we had Kevin Rudd, then Julia Gillard, then Kevin Rudd administrations, we did see policy being introduced into this place in great haste, with little thought and with no consultation. Because the Labor government had been able to strike a deal with the member for Lyne and the member for New England at the time—the Independents—and the Green, they were able to ramrod legislation in this place, which caused a lot of consternation, particularly in regional Australia, about the haste and the waste. Australia was poorer as a result.

The three bills assist to deliver the coalition government's commitment to reducing red tape. I am joined here by the parliamentary secretary, the member for McPherson. She understands the need to reduce red tape. She understands just how important it is for government to get out of the way of business, to make sure that everything business does works to the benefit of the nation. We are cleaning the statute book and ensuring that outdated, redundant and duplicative regulation is repealed. That is what this is all about.

The government announced that the total deregulatory saving since September 2013—and the member for Rankin is going to be interested in this figure—is $2.45 billion. That is going to be a saving against that total bill that, had it been left unchecked, was going to reach $667 billion. Thankfully, we are doing something about that. Thankfully, we are striding towards a credible surplus in the future. Labor have not produced a surplus since 1989. At the time the member for Rankin was no doubt at school, or perhaps he was not even born. I am not quite sure. When were you born?

Jim Chalmers (Rankin, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Opposition) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I will ask the questions around here, mate!

Michael McCormack (Riverina, National Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It was a long time ago. The member for Longman certainly was not born at the time, and he is very much looking forward to a point in time when we get back into surplus. I will not say he is looking forward to the time that Labor achieves a surplus, because we do not want to see Labor back in government and doing what they did between 2007 and 2013.

The $2.45 billion of total deregulatory savings is a significant achievement because it will produce a real and positive impact on business. Business confidence is at a very good level at the moment, particularly after this year's May budget when the instant asset write-off for $20,000 worth of goods was introduced. Certainly it is amongst the farmers, who can write off their fences as a 100 per cent total deduction straightaway. That produced a lot of confidence within my electorate of Riverina.

For the first time in Australian history, the federal government have undertaken a thorough and accurate stock take of all federal regulatory costs. We are consistently measuring and decreasing the cost of government red tape for Australian businesses, organisations, families and individuals. As I say, we are energising enterprise. We hear the small business minister saying that in his evangelical way all the time, and it is so true. We are energising enterprise, and that is a good thing. I commend this legislation to the House.

Karen Andrews (McPherson, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Science) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is my great pleasure to indicate my support for this omnibus bill which represents the third repeal day in the life of this government and which clearly reflects our unwavering commitment to cutting red tape. I know that everyone on this side of the House remains excited and energised about the fact that while we are in office there will be two sitting days every year dedicated to repealing legislation and regulations. This is about removing unnecessary red tape that does not serve a positive purpose and only adds to the regulatory burden that individuals, businesses and community groups have to deal with. We were unequivocal during the 2013 election campaign—we made a commitment to cut red tape by $1 billion every year. So far, we are delivering that commitment in full, with the total deregulatory saving since September 2013 currently at $2.5 billion. This is a significant achievement and one that has a very real, positive impact on businesses, community organisations and families.

But, of course, there is much more to be done. Importantly, for the first time in our history, we have undertaken a thorough and accurate stock take of all federal regulatory costs, and we have embarked on an ongoing program to consistently measure and reduce the cost of government red tape. Under the former Labor government, Commonwealth regulation was costing Australians approximately $65 billion—a remarkable 4.2 per cent of GDP. Following these bills, the government will have repealed more than 10,300 legislative instruments and introduced legislation to repeal over 2,700 acts of parliament.

It is not about cutting red tape for the sake of it; the reason we are so determined to pursue the task of ongoing deregulatory savings is that our goal is to make life easier for Australians and to make it easier for businesses to decide to invest and create more jobs. Cutting red tape is about Australians spending less time in queues, filling out forms and searching for information.

In my electorate of McPherson on the southern Gold Coast I regularly hold listening posts. The most regular and common message I get when I am speaking to my constituents is that people want the government to make things simpler rather than more complicated. They want to be able to get on with their working lives and run their businesses or volunteer at the local charity or sporting club without having to wade through paperwork and having the burden of regulation make tasks that were originally simple much more difficult.

Members opposite used to brag when they were in government about the amount of legislation that was passed through the House. Indeed, in just over five years, Labor managed to introduce around 21,000 new regulations—but so much of it was unnecessary. As I said in the spring repeal debate last year, I am a firm believer in smaller government. I believe that the 'have a go' budget our government delivered is all about harnessing the drive and energy of our people, because they are the ones who will grow our economy and create a more cohesive society.

Governments are rarely the solution to any problem. We can help to create the right environment for individuals and businesses to thrive, but governments do not hold the answers. And the notion of big government solving problems—which seems to be the Labor mantra—is in my view a recipe for disaster.

The idea of smaller government is at the heart of the coalition's policy approach, and it is certainly reflected in these bills and in our commitment to ongoing repeal days. This will help ensure that, over time, the burden continues to be lifted and we streamline the work of government into the future. What is more, the coalition have a new approach with every piece of legislation or proposed regulation that we put forward. We must first ask, 'What is the purpose, cost and impact on productivity of the proposed initiatives?' before we regulate. Only after these questions are answered and only when it is absolutely necessary will we proceed to regulate.

I want to point out that, as part of the government's red-tape objective, portfolios and regulators are assessing opportunities for greater acceptance of international standards and risk assessments. If a system, service or product has been approved under a trusted international standard or risk assessment then the view is that our regulators should not impose any additional requirements for approval in Australia unless it can be demonstrated that there is a good reason to do so.

To ensure a thorough review of all regulations, ministers in all portfolios are seeking the views of key business and other stakeholders on each of their standards and risk assessment processes. Members of the public are being invited to submit examples of unnecessary divergences from international standards, on the Cutting Red Tape website. We recognise that this is very much an ongoing process, and we are inviting continued input from the community and from businesses.

I want to speak very briefly about the nature of the changes that we are discussing today. On top of delivering the biggest small-business package in our nation's history with the budget, we are also delivering some significant measures with this bill, including implementing easier monthly PAYG for certain businesses. Businesses choosing to use this method will only need to calculate their actual instalment income on a quarterly basis. This is expected to result in annual compliance savings of $2.7 million.

For transport and freight companies, we have removed the requirement for heavy vehicle operators of B-double truck combinations registered under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme to fit additional spray suppression devices. This will save around $8.3 million each year.

We are also reforming the 457 visa program by streamlining the processing of sponsorship, nomination and visa applications; reforming sponsorship requirements to reduce the time and cost to businesses; increasing the sponsorship approval period from 12 to 18 months for start-up businesses; and providing greater flexibility in relation to English-language-testing and skill requirements. This is expected to result in savings of $29.9 million a year.

We are also making improvements to the ATO website so that six million Australians can find relevant information more quickly, resulting in compliance savings of $48.5 million. These are all measures that collectively ease the regulatory burden on businesses, and there will be many more to come.

This bill also improves the myGov online service to allow customers to update their details in one place and to obtain secure and convenient access to online services with a single account and one set of credentials. This is expected to generate savings of $5.4 million a year.

We are also making identity checks even easier for retailers and consumers when purchasing a new prepaid mobile phone, saving $6.2 million a year. And restrictions on using personal electronic devices have been lifted so travellers can use their PEDs during all phases of flight. This will deliver compliance savings of $17.7 million. These are just a few of the common-sense measures in this omnibus bill.

I note that within the portfolio of industry and science, of which I am parliamentary secretary, there are net savings of $56.05 million as part of this repeal day. These come from a variety of measures, including closing down programs that were no longer required or perhaps were duplicating services offered elsewhere. Our portfolio, like every other portfolio, is being asked to contribute to the task of deregulation, and we will certainly continue to do so.

The bottom line is that our government will continue to work its way through the tangle of red tape and regulation in order to deliver cost savings, which ultimately result in more-efficient government and more-productive business and not-for-profit sectors. This is good news for Australian industry, and it is also good news for the scientific sector, which I know sometimes feels the weight of regulatory burden. This will improve competitiveness, help create more jobs and also lower household costs, which is great news for my constituents on the southern Gold Coast, as it is for all Australians.

I am very proud to be part of a government which is very much focused on cutting red tape. As I indicated earlier in my speech, when I am in my electorate and I am speaking to my constituents, the single issue that they repeatedly raise with me is their concern about red tape slowing down their businesses and slowing down the work that they are doing in their communities and at charities. They have asked me as their representative to do everything that I possibly can to make sure that this government continues on the path of cutting red tape.

I certainly am very proud to be doing all that I can to cut red tape, and I call on all of the members of this House to do everything that they can to identify opportunities for red tape to be reduced for our businesses and our members of the community. It is one of the most important things that we as members of this House can do, and I certainly commend this bill to the House.

Bruce Scott (Maranoa, Deputy-Speaker) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.