Sam Rae (Hawke, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The parliament is necessarily a very, very busy place to work. I think we've sat for five of the last seven weeks. It's been a particularly busy period, and we're coming to the end of that intensive sitting period. There's no doubt that, since being elected 12 months ago, the Albanese Labor government has had an extensive legislative program. We have a mandate for reform, and we haven't wasted a single day. We've been busy in this place at every opportunity and busy out of this place when we've not been sitting. Because of that scale of work that we're seeking to push along, there is the need for prioritisation in this parliament and the need for hard decisions to sometimes be made about how parliament's time is best used.

One of the reflections that are often made amongst colleagues on all sides, from all parties, is that we don't always get the opportunity to examine legislation and to explore its implications and the values that sit behind it. Often it is these TLAB bills that people would like to see a little bit more discussion around and a little bit more depth of discourse. For those who are tuning in from home or elsewhere to hear these contributions—schoolkids who might be on their lunchbreak or workers who are putting down their tools for smoko—it's a good opportunity. In this case, since this is a bill that has bipartisan support and is relatively non-controversial, where there is consensus that these are sensible and measured approaches to improving not just our laws but our entire ecosystem of business and governance in these places and spaces, it's appropriate that the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023 be one of those that we take a little bit more time to examine.

I commend the parliament for its decision to go into a little more detail on this particular TLAB. I know it will satisfy many of my colleagues, particularly on the economics committee, in terms of wanting to go into a little bit more detail in regard to these sorts of bills.

Some of the other speakers have already spoken to these points but they are really important, particularly from a governance perspective. The first point I want to deal with is the schedule 1 to 3 amendments, those that have arisen from the Law Reform Commission recommendations. The Law Reform Commission has issued its first two interim reports, Interim report A and Interim report B, of its Review of the Legislative Framework for Corporations and Financial Services Regulation. The purpose of this particular review is to explore the opportunities for simplification and rationalisation of our financial services laws—indeed, to strengthen and enhance the integrity of the legal framework we operate in. The amendments arising out of those first two interim reports are included in this bill, and they are very much aimed at improving the navigability of and simplifying those laws so that they can be more easily adhered to by businesses, consumers and others who are engaging in this place.

There are some very sensible approaches here, and one that is immediately understandable to anyone is the concept of creating a single glossary of all defined terms. It's not a particularly workable situation where a set of laws is relying on terminologies that may have inconsistent or, in some rare cases, conflicting meanings, depending on interpretation. The rationalisation of a single glossary for the defined terms under the Corporations Act is a very sensible approach to making these laws easier to implement and to adhere to.

The repealing of redundant provisions is, again, a very sensible approach to improving this legislation. There are a range of provisions that are no longer used that become redundant by virtue of a range of things—evolving markets, perhaps technology—and there are cross-references throughout the legislation to some of these provisions that are wholly redundant at this point. It is a very sensible approach to improving the navigability and the implementation of this legislation.

Correcting errors goes without the need for explanation. Where there are errors that have arisen, often through iterative development of legislation, there's a need to correct those. There is improving the clarity of terms defined as having more than one meaning and definitions containing substantive obligations, so that, for those that are trying to interpret and indeed adhere to these laws—or, in some cases, review activities or decisions that have been made that interact with these laws—there is a greater level of clarity around that and that it is focused on an implementable set of understandings that can be both prospectively adhered to and retrospectively understood in that context.

Schedule 4 deals with some insurance matters. I think we've all got regard for the integrity of our insurance industries, understanding that they effectively take on a great deal of responsibility on behalf of our community. Of course, there are some significant fiduciary responsibilities associated with insurances.

One of those matters that this bill deals with rather comprehensively is the addressing of provisions under the law that have sunsetting dates upon them. Sunset dates are important. When it comes to the legislative process, there's a good reason to insert sunset clauses for particular provisions. One might be that they reach a natural term of life at which point the context in which their application is relevant changes, and you want that provision to lapse accordingly. The other is that many legislative provisions are understandably going to evolve over time; they should evolve with the evolving context. By inserting sunset clauses for certain provisions within legislation, we allow for the parliament to revisit these matters within that evolving context, to better understand the implications of that evolving context and to ensure that the legislation remains up to date and relevant.

The purpose of the relevant insurance act under this particular piece of legislation is to protect policyholders, fundamentally. We want to ensure that we have a rigorous approach to regulating the types of persons that carry on insurance business, and we want to ensure that the standards that those persons and those businesses are held to are extraordinarily high. In many cases, these businesses and these people are taking on the hard-earned money of working people, and they are promising a product that can be difficult to define at times. We know that in many cases the circumstances in which insurance claims are ultimately made can be diverse and complex. That is, in and of itself, a difficult enough context in which to have to determine the appropriateness of application. If we don't start with the right people making those determinations, it will be very, very difficult for the insurance industry to maintain the confidence of the public. Indeed, the regulatory framework in which that industry operates is critical. It's absolutely critical.

The amendments in schedule 4, as the member for Bean was saying, are primarily technical. They include updating certain provisions to reflect modern communication practices. There was an amusing discussion earlier about the use of fax machines to communicate critical information, and, of course, that is no longer acceptable. These outdated communication methods are no longer acceptable to the community. To allow legislation to languish, in terms of its applicable context, fails to meet the expectations of the community in that regard. So we want to ensure that communication practices are practicable and reflect the expectations of the community in terms of the way the regulation deals with them.

We also, under schedule 4, are seeking to allow regulators to administratively prescribe the manner and form of certain notices. This is important from a flexibility perspective, and it's important in order to ensure that modern drafting practices are adhered to through these processes. Again, in many cases in the insurance space we have working people purchasing a product. There can be information asymmetry in this space. I speak from my own perspective: I find the fine print in particular insurance and other financial products very difficult to wrap my head around at times. The member for Bruce has a much larger brain than I do—

See this speech in context