Carol Brown (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Families and Payments) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015 was introduced as part of the fourth so-called red-tape repeal day in the life of this government. How far it has come! Back in the old days, the former Prime Minister Mr Abbott gave the ministerial statement to a packed chamber, and debate followed a week later. There was even a gag motion put on that prevented government members from talking about red tape. Now, after a ministerial statement given by the third parliamentary secretary looking after deregulation policy, it seems to go by unnoticed. The Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015 is one of the three so-called repeal day bills that were introduced, along with the Amending Acts 1990 to 1999 Repeal Bill 2015 and the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 3) 2015. These combined three bills contained $6.9 million in deregulatory savings. It is the second lowest amount of deregulatory savings contained in a set of these bills that have been brought forward by this government. When the government talks about its $4.5 billion figure in deregulatory savings, it is clear that the legislation introduced on these repeal days has not contributed much to them at all. In fact, the four sets of repeal day bills have a combined $63.6 million in deregulatory savings. Out of the $4.5 billion figure, that is 1.4 per cent of the total amount.

In the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill, out of a total 37 measures, only four have deregulatory savings attached, totalling $6.2 million. Quite simply, the bill, like previous bills, is filled with measures that have no deregulatory savings attached. For example, in the Agriculture portfolio, there is the repeal of an advisory body, the Fishing Industry Policy Council, which has actually never met since it was enacted in 1991. In the Finance portfolio, there is the repeal of seven old appropriations acts from the 2012-13 financial year and eight old appropriations acts from the 2013-14 financial year. Given these financial years have come and gone, these acts can be repealed. But, again, there are no deregulatory savings attached. In the Industry, Innovation and Science portfolio, there is the repeal of the Patents Amendment (Patent Cooperation Treaty) Act 1979; the act amended the Patents Act 1952. As an amending act, it became spent as soon as it amended the principal act. Furthermore, the principal act was repealed in 1990 and replaced by the Patents Act 1990. So this is getting rid of a piece of legislation that had ceased to have any practical effect for decades.

There are even some provisions that are familiar, some contained in previous omnibus repeal bills that, for one reason or the other, have not yet passed the parliament. For example, there is the repeal of the Skilling Australia's Workforce Act 2005—originally in the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014—which has not passed the parliament because the government will not accept our amendments in relation to the Future Submarine project tender process and whether the successful tenderer would give an undertaking that the building, maintenance and sustainment of the submarines would take place in Australia, with the majority of the work on the build undertaken by Australian labour and the majority of the materials used sourced from Australian suppliers.

Similarly there is the Patents Amendment (Patent Cooperation Treaty) Act 1979 repeal, amending the Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory Act 2012, the repeal of the Papua and New Guinea Loan (International Bank) Act 1970, the repeal of the Customs (Tariff Concession System Validations) Act 1999—I could go on, but you get the hint—which were originally found in the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2014) Bill 2014. In total, there are actually 19 measures that have been recycled from the spring 2014 bill. So, far from any new reforms or new repeal type measures, the government has resorted to filling up this bill with recycled measures in an attempt to get it through the parliament.

There are four measures that do have deregulatory savings attached—and, ironically enough, two of these are recycled measures. Firstly, there is the repeal of section 19AD of the Health Insurance Act 1973, which removes the requirement for a five-yearly review of the operation of the Medicare provider number legislation. There have been no issues or unintended consequences found in the previous reviews, and so the legislative requirement is deemed to be no longer required. This has $3,000 in deregulatory savings attached.

Secondly, there is the repeal of the requirement to use administrator/adviser panels to assist approved aged-care providers under sanction. Other guidelines exist that put restrictions on who can be appointed an administrator/adviser, and so this requirement is deemed to be no longer required. This has $5 million in deregulatory savings attached.

Thirdly, there is amendment of approved provider obligations for an approved provider of aged care to notify the secretary of changes to any of its key personnel. The requirement would be where the change would materially affect the provider's suitability to be a provider of aged care. This has $1.2 million in deregulatory savings attached, but, importantly, this is a recycled measure from the spring 2014 bill.

Fourthly, there are amendments to the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 that would allow a person to disclose, or further use or record, protected information that has been disclosed to them for the purpose of research, statistical analysis or policy development, where it is consistent with the purpose of the initial disclosure. Given that the information has already been disclosed to them, there is no need for a public interest certificate process or to seek a further decision from the secretary in order to further disclose the information. This measure has $5,000 in deregulatory savings, but, like the third measure with deregulatory savings, this is a recycled measure from the spring 2014 bill.

So, out of the $6.2 million of deregulatory savings, $1.2 million are actually recycled measures. Notably, there is a section in this bill that makes a series of amendments to Commonwealth legislation to recognise the fact that there is self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. While some modifications were incorporated into relevant Commonwealth acts, some were not. The amendments in this bill are intended to make the remaining modifications to fully ensure that Commonwealth laws are applied in an appropriate manner to the ACT, following the ACT's move to self-government—which occurred in 1988.

However, there are some concerns with the repeal of the National Rural Advisory Council in the agriculture section of the bill and the removal of the consultation requirements in the communications section of the bill. We also have concerns with some of the proposed amendments to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999. Since being passed by the Howard government 15 years ago, the EPBC Act has been the overriding national environmental protection law. Since being elected, the coalition has made numerous attempts to weaken the EPBC Act. Labor will always support common-sense improvements to our environmental regulatory system, such as the streamlining of assessment processes and the removal of errors and elements that lead to unintended impacts

What we will not support is the weakening of environmental protections, reducing transparency or limiting the community's right to challenge government decisions. We will refer the bill to the Senate Finance and Public Administration Committee for an inquiry to work through the issues that we have.

These repeal day bills have been far from the mark when it comes to the government's deregulatory agenda. When we were in government we repealed over 16,000 acts and legislative instruments—16,794 to be precise—and cut costs to business by $4 billion per year through the Seamless National Economy reforms. This was done without too much of the noise and fanfare the government has attributed to these days. Let us call this for what it is: these repeal days are nothing more than the ordinary routine business of government and they should never have been given the hype and fanfare that they were in the first place.

Within the area of agriculture, we have the Agriculture and Water Resources Repeal of the Rural Adjustment Act 1992: the act contains provisions relating to the Rural Adjustment Scheme and the Farm Business Improvement Program, which ceased in 1997 and 2008 respectively. The act also established the National Rural Advisory Council, which effectively ceased operations in June 2015. Then there is the repeal of the Wool International Act 1993: the act provided equity to wool growers regarding contributions made to WoolStock Australia Limited. The act is redundant, given that WoolStock Australia Limited ceased operating in 2001. With regard to the repeal of the Wool International Privatisation Act 1999, the act was to privatise Wool International and set up WoolStock Australia Limited—the privatisation has occurred and the new entity ceased operating in 2001. There were amendments to the Natural Heritage Trust of Australia Act 1997 subsequent to the repeal of the Rural Adjustment Act 1992, along with punctuation and heading changes; amendments to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code, so that information required to be provided under the Agvet Code will be limited to the names of the active constituents of the chemical products, which reflects the standard set in the Maximum Residue Limits Standard; and amendments to the Australian Meat and Live-stock Industry Act 1997 to repeal obsolete provisions that provide for payments to industry marketing and research bodies which were repealed in 1999. Various bodies have been abolished: the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority Advisory Board; the Fishing Industry Policy Council, which has not met since legislation for its creation was enacted in 1991.

Within the Attorney-General's portfolio, the Ordinances and Regulations (Notification) Act 1978 has been repealed, as the publication of legislative instruments is now dealt with by the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.

Redundant provisions in the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 have been repealed, since the SBS has assumed television production and supply activities previously undertaken by National Indigenous TV Limited. Other provisions have been repealed in the following acts: the Interactive Gambling Act 2001, the Radiocommunications Act 1992, the Telecommunications Act 1992 and the Telecommunications Act 1997 that require the Australian Communications and Media Authority to undertake consultation with specified parties before taking certain action. This is because there are provisions in the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 that require consultation to be undertaken prior to making a legislative instrument. These changes mirror similar changes that were in the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Act 2014. Amendments have been made to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 that would allow ACMA to notify stakeholders of certain matters via its website and other accessible forms.

In the realm of education and training, the Skilling Australia's Workforce Act 2005 has been repealed; the act was the vehicle for the previous National Training Arrangements and, given this function has now been superseded by the National Agreements for Skills and Workforce Development, the act is redundant. The Social Security Act 1991 has been amended in relation to the definition of a VET provider in line with the repeal of the Skilling Australia's Workforce Act 2005.

Returning to the environment, the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 has been amended so that consent requirements of projects that can create carbon credits under the Emissions Reduction Fund only apply to consents from eligible interest holders and are only required for sequestration offsets projects as opposed to all area-based offsets projects. The Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 has also been amended to remove the reference to strategic assessments being a process that occurs after a controlled action decision. The strategic assessment process works differently—in a different part of the act—and does not include a controlled action decision. Other amendments to that act change the definition of 'assessment documentation' so that it accords with the actual documentation that is required to be produced by a proponent for an assessment on preliminary documentation. Another amendment to that act removes the requirement to publish or give notice of a decision to accept a referral under subsection 74A(1) of the act. The minister actually does not make a decision to accept such a referral under the legislation, and therefore the provision is redundant.

In the area of finance, seven old appropriations acts from 2012-13 and eight old appropriations acts from 2013-14 have been repealed.

In the health portfolio, the Medical Training Review Panel has been abolished, since the members of the panel have agreed that it could be wound up and its previous roles handled by the National Medical Training Advisory Panel. There have been amendments to the Health Insurance Act 1973 to remove the requirement for a review of the Medicare provider number legislation every five years; three previous reviews in 2003, 2005 and 2010 have not identified any anomalies or unintended consequences, and previous reviews have indicated a general acceptance and satisfaction by stakeholders of how the legislation is operating. The provision for the minister to provide a report regarding this review will also be removed. This measure has $3,000 in deregulatory savings.

Amendments to the Aged Care Act 1997 have been made to remove the requirement by the secretary to approve advisers who assist with conducting care recipient appraisals. Instead, there would be restrictions on who can be an adviser, and these are set out in the Classifications Principles 2014. The changes would also remove the adviser and administrator panels currently used when approved providers are given a sanction. Instead, there will be restrictions on who can be an adviser or an administrator which would be set out in the Sanctions Principles 2014. This measure has $5 million in deregulatory savings.

There are amendments to the Aged Care Act 1997 to amend approved provider obligations for an approved provider of aged care to notify the secretary of changes to any of its key personnel—the requirement would be where the change would materially affect the provider's suitability to be a provider of aged care. This measure has $1.2 million in deregulatory savings.

There are amendments to the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995 and the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Care Charges Act 1995 to take into account amendments made in 2011 to the National Health Act 1953. The 2011 amendments removed the concepts of 'nursing home care' and 'nursing home benefit', but the changes were not reflected in the two health and other services compensation acts.

There is the repeal of the Customs (Tariff Concessions System Validations) Act 1999—the act was to validate decisions in relation to the making of tariff concession orders that were based on incorrect delegations or the lack of appropriate delegations. These decisions were made between 1996 and 1999. The act is now obsolete.

We have the repeal of the Patents Amendment (Patent Cooperation Treaty) Act 1979—the act amended the Patents Act 1952. As an amending act, it became spent as soon as it amended the principal act. Furthermore, the principal act was repealed in 1990 and replaced by the Patents Act 1990.

There are amendments to a series of acts to incorporate modifications made by the ACT Self-Government (Consequential Provisions) Regulations. The ASGR made modifications to a number of Commonwealth acts following the establishment of self-government in the ACT. While some modifications were incorporated into relevant Commonwealth acts, some were not. The amendments in this bill are intended to make the remaining modifications to fully ensure that Commonwealth laws are applied in an appropriate manner to the ACT, following the ACT's move to self-government—which occurred in 1988.

With the repeal of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act 1991, the act established the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, which produced its final report in 2000, and there are no ongoing arrangements, appointments or other measures still active in relation to this. There are amendments to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 to take into account the repeal of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act 1991. There are amendments to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Act 2005 that would allow the appropriate consenting authority to waive the exercise of its statutory consent power by providing written notice to the organisation concerned that consent is no longer required.

There is an amendment to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 to repeal section 114, providing for an independent review of the operation of the 'prohibited material' measure in part 10 of the act. This measure was part of the package of measures relating to the former National Partnership Agreement on Stronger Futures in the Northern Territory. The government views this provision as redundant—but could not repeal it until a formal independent review of the act had been concluded. The final report was tabled in the parliament in mid-September of 2015, and so this section can be repealed.

There are a number of other sections that I do not have time to go through. In conclusion, this bill again represents a facade of action on savings and deregulation rather than real measures that make a difference for industry and business in Australia. Once again we have a government that spends more time paying lip service to savings rather than actually finding them.

Larissa Waters (Queensland, Australian Greens) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill. We just had the autumn bill; it seems we have all seasons in one day. That is very interesting, because the bill, with one key exception, does not really do anything and one wonders what the government is going to put to this chamber. Are we going to see any substantive legislation this week? Who knows. Anyway, this is certainly not it. There is one sting in the tail, though. There are a handful of amendments to our environmental laws. As people know, this is an area I have long viewed as weak and needing reform. Sadly, the reform that has been proposed in this handful of amendments would further reduce community notice and community participation and then the community right to enforce laws before the court. So once again we see environmental rights being attacked by this government.

This has been a bit of a recurring theme over the last 2½ years. The latest attack is of course to not tell the community when the minister has made a decision on what is called a staged referral or a split referral. When a developer wants to do a development and they think they do not really want to have to get federal permission, because the feds only need to approve an impact that is significant on matters of national environmental significance developers can stage their development to try to avoid that threshold, the minister needs to turn his or her mind to whether that is being deliberately done and needs to tell the community when he or she has made the decision.

Debate interrupted.