Ben Morton (Tangney, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet) Share this | Hansard source

knowing that the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, the Minister for Health and other members of the National Security Committee were in the cabinet room discussing Australia's response to the coronavirus, were playing political parlour games and distracting those ministers and the Prime Minister from doing their job of keeping Australians safe. Shame on you! Spending decisions will come as we respond to the health and economic needs of Australians in responding to the coronavirus, and this government will stand ready, because we are strong economic and fiscal managers of our economy.

I am going to share with you some of the areas that I am most excited about. In my responsibility as Assistant Minister to the Prime Minister and Cabinet, I lead our government's deregulation agenda. As part of that, I'm responsible for the Office of Best Practice Regulation, and we have made some announcements recently in relation to the regulatory impact analysis framework, and I'm going to share those with you today. The regulatory impact statement or RIS process helps the government navigate the complex policy challenges where there are changes in the behaviour of businesses or individuals. These RISs, or the impact analysis settings, allow us to make sure that we are making decisions that are fit for purpose.

We have made decisions to simplify the process for policymakers. The previous four categories of the regulatory impact statements will be condensed into one, with the level of analysis to be proportionate to the magnitude of the problem and the potential impacts. To ensure the effort put in by agencies is more accurately recognised, there will be four levels of quality assessment: insufficient, fit for purpose, good practice and exemplary. They should all aim for exemplary; that is what our expectation is of them.

To ensure the focus on regulatory costs doesn't come at the expense of understanding economic and competition impacts of new proposals, agencies will still be required to include the regulatory or red tape costs in a RIS. However, the Office of Best Practice Regulation will no longer be required to agree to these costs in isolation. We will also task the Office of Best Practice Regulation, which oversees the government's RIA settings, to assess independent reviews, which can substitute for regulatory impact statements, for relevance to the problem and the recommended policy option. Well-designed, well-targeted, limited and fit-for-purpose regulation supports the government to deliver our agenda and priorities effectively. While those opposite might not be interested in the regulatory impact statements that are so important to better decision-making in government, this government is committed to making sure that these processes are fit for purpose.

The hypocrisy of those opposite knows no bounds. We're asked about government spending. I refer you to the Auditor-General's report that found that when the Labor leader, the member for Grayndler, was administering programs as infrastructure minister, he disproportionately gave money to Labor seats. The ANAO report in 2011 found ministers waived the eligibility criteria for projects funded by Labor's Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program, and that a number of projects in coalition seats did not get funding. The ANAO report reads:

... whilst the majority of applications received related to projects located in a Coalition held electorate (55 per cent of all applications), the significant majority (some 82 per cent) of these were not approved for funding…

… whilst 40.3 per cent of all applications related to a project in an ALP held electorate, just under 60 per cent of approved projects were in an ALP held electorate.

The report also found that Mr Albanese's own office had set out the projects by electorate:

In addition to the data originally provided by the department, two new columns were added to the worksheet to identify the electorate in which the project was located, and the political party that held that electorate.

That's what the report said. The hypocrisy of those opposite knows no bounds. On days when the parliament and the Prime Minister are dealing with issues relating to the safety of Australians, those opposite play political parlour games in this House as opposed to allowing the government to get on with the business of government. (Time expired)

See this speech in context