Tony Abbott (Warringah, Liberal Party, Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—Today bills are introduced for the second red tape repeal day. It is the second of many repeal days to come. Every day this government is working to build a strong, prosperous economy for a safe and secure Australia. Every day we are seeking to identify ways to make life easier for individuals, community groups, charities and businesses large and small. Our Economic Action Strategy aims to remove burdens from business, make our country more competitive and drive more jobs and higher living standards for all Australians. But today—this day—I am pleased to report that since the election this government has reduced annual red-tape costs by over $2 billion. This more than doubles our original commitment of a $1 billion a year cut in red-tape costs.

While some regulation is necessary, and nearly all regulations originally had some point, we are now suffering from regulatory overkill. Between 2010 and last year, an act of parliament was passed every two days. Under the former government some 21,000 new regulations became part of our national life. That does not include the regulations, laws and by-laws that were added at state and territory and local levels. While it is easy to point to bizarre examples, like the ACT government's attempt to require safety supervisors at sausage sizzles, the purpose of this government today is to look beyond the absurd. It is to identify the raft of red tape that adds costs without commensurate public benefit. Talk to any butcher, newsagent, drycleaner or cafe owner and he or she will tell you that it is the accumulation of regulation that damages initiative, productivity and the willingness of people to have a go.

If red tape can grow incrementally, then it can be cut in the same way and that is what the government is doing today. When it comes to regulation, we are changing the culture of government. Deregulation units are now in place across government; ministerial advisory councils have been established in each portfolio so that the people impacted by decisions can have a say on them. Portfolio regulation audits are underway. The performance pay of senior public servants now includes deregulation as a key performance indicator. The site cuttingredtape.gov.au has been established, allowing every Australian to make a contribution to the government's deliberations on cutting red tape. Regulatory impact statements are required for cabinet submissions because assessing the cost of any regulation is as important as knowing its benefits. Soon, a regulatory performance framework will drive cultural change within regulators and help to ensure that regulations are administered effectively and efficiently.

In March, we held the first ever red tape repeal day. On that day, nearly 10,000 unnecessary or counterproductive regulations and 1,000 redundant acts of parliament were removed. That day we relegated some 50,000 pages of redundant regulation from the law books to the history books. Since the first red tape repeal day we have scrapped the carbon tax and the mining tax. Scrapping the carbon tax has not only saved typical households $550 a year and removed a $9 billion a year handbrake from our economy, but it has provided a direct red-tape saving to business of $85 million a year.

Each repeal day is an opportunity to reduce or eliminate regulation and legislation that has outlived its usefulness or does more harm than good. Today we add to this with almost a thousand acts and regulations to be scrapped. More than 7,200 pages of legislation and regulation will go as a result of this second red tape repeal day.

These changes, large and small, are about making people's lives easier, because we are a government that is freeing up businesses so that they focus on the people they are meant to serve. We will make it easier, for instance, for bricks-and-mortar shops to compete with online stores by reducing their compliance costs because, all too often, the retail sector has to interact with multiple agencies from local, state and national government. We are making it easier for Australian Apprenticeships Support Network providers, who will no longer have to maintain some three million paper files and waste money every quarter doing so. By reducing administrative costs, these service providers can better focus on assisting apprentices and employers in meeting the skills Australia needs. We are also making life simpler for users of managed investment schemes, who will no longer have to undertake two separate know-your-customer checks before they can complete their applications, because one check should be enough. Every year there are over 500,000 new applicants for these schemes and every duplicate check costs the managed funds around $40—as well as the time the customer spends providing the same information twice.

In health care we are reducing the time taken to list medicines on the PBS to improve access to those vital life saving and life enhancing drugs. We are delivering a one-stop shop for environmental approvals. Reducing these approval delays is expected to result in regulatory savings to business of over $426 million a year.

Our Industry Innovation and Competitiveness Agenda is promoting lower costs, better skills and the have-a-go ethos that is so much a part of the Australian character. By reinvigorating Australian businesses we reinvigorate the economy. Deregulation is an essential part of that agenda because bubble wrapping our creative minds in red tape stifles innovation and flexibility. Importantly, the competitiveness agenda includes proposals to reduce duplication of our regulatory arrangements where trusted international standards have already been met or trusted international assessments have already been made. Our guiding principle is that if a system, service or product has been improved under the trusted international standard or risk assessment then Australian regulators should not impose any additional requirement without a demonstrable reason to do so.

We are already seeing the benefits of this. For instance, the Therapeutic Goods Administration has just advised Cochlear, who make the bionic ear, that all of its products are eligible to use European Union certification to streamline TGA certification and that implementation will begin from next month. This change, according to Cochlear, will mean that thousands of people here and overseas will have access to the very latest devices, sometimes up to a year earlier than may otherwise have been the case.

As well, we are making it easier for small to medium exporters to finance their export activity now that the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation has the flexibility to lend directly for all types of exports—not just capital goods—reducing business costs and processing time. EFIC's adoption of accelerated execution processes for some transactions could shorten processing time by 40 per cent. This could save an average of $5,000 per export contract. These measures will make it easier for entrepreneurs to transform ideas into reality and create an environment where small businesses can do more.

With changes to the Corporations Act governing the administration of general meetings making it harder for activists to make vexatious requests for shareholder meetings, the management of Australia's largest companies can spend more time focused on managing their company and managing their shareholders. We are making these changes because people do not work for government, government should work for people. It is government's job to serve the people, not the people's job to serve the government. We are a country of people who work hard, pay their taxes, volunteer in their local communities and save for their retirement.

Where we can make it easier for people to spend their time as they choose, rather than waste it filling out forms, we should. For example, a working mother who does not want to be contacted by telemarketers during her spare time will be able to register both her home and mobile phone number on the Do Not Call Register. By keeping her numbers on the list indefinitely we are now also making sure that she does not have to remember to re-register every eight years. This same mother could also benefit from the rollout of the myTax online portal that prefills individual's tax returns so that they do not have to spend hours flipping through the pages of a paper tax return. For over 250,000 people this program should reduce the time taken to submit a tax return. And the broader myGov system means that Medicare, Centrelink and Child Support customers can obtain information, make claims and access services without having to visit a service centre in person or spend time on hold on the phone.

Cutting red tape is about making life easier. It means anything from less time in airports waiting in queues because of SmartGate to more forms of identification that marriage celebrants may accept. Cutting red tape should mean less time in queues, less time filling out forms and less time searching for information. These changes and other changes since September of last year have removed over $2 billion in annual red-tape costs. But this is the start, not the end. We are not only cutting red tape but changing the culture that fosters and encourages it. Regulation should not and must not be the default option for policymakers, because more regulation is not the answer to every corporate, community or personal failing. We are a country with highly skilled and highly capable people running businesses, helping community groups and making our country better. We are putting more trust in them to make the right choices and we know that our people are up to the task. I am proud of the progress that we have made so far and I pledge that there is much more yet to come.

Sussan Ley (Farrer, Liberal Party, Assistant Minister for Education) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

by leave—I move:

That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the member for Watson speaking in reply to the Prime Minister's statement for a period not exceeding 13 minutes.

Question agreed to.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I thank members of the government for enthusiastically voting for the motion to allow me to speak for 13 minutes! I certainly hope that the repeal day coming up goes better than the last one. The Prime Minister said in his ministerial statement just then that 'our purpose is to look beyond the absurd'. That would have been a valid aim on the last so-called repeal day.

Since the last one I have had a chance to go through the costings provided for the savings. The Prime Minister just now referred to a number of global figures for how much will be saved through these bills. Last time we ended up with costings for how much individual acts were contributing, in dollar terms, in red tape reduction. The Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Repeal Bill 2014 allegedly saved—and it is part of the global total the Prime Minister uses—$210,000. This was the act that repealed a Defence Act, which had a definition relating to a naval officer of a state navy, notwithstanding that the states have not had navies since 1913. It repealed the Defence Act 1909 that, among other things, stipulated that the owner of a mule or bullock required for naval or military purposes shall furnish it for such purposes and the owner may have to register them from time to time. The minister who is at the table, the Minister for Agriculture, will know the extent to which the owners of mules and bullocks have been frightened that—

Barnaby Joyce (New England, National Party, Minister for Agriculture) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It does not take much for a bullock to be frightened.

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

That is very good. He knows the extent to which they were frightened the Australian government was going to come in and take their stock for military purposes. It also repealed the Judiciary Act 1914 that made the High Court of Australia a Colonial Court of Admiralty, notwithstanding that Colonial Courts of Admiralty had ceased to exist in 1988.

Somehow getting rid of these laws that were redundant, meaningless and had no impact on anyone—so there was no problem getting rid of them; we did not oppose it—adds up to $210,000 worth of savings. I do not know how. I do not know how those numbers get put together, but it makes more sense than when they established $350,000 worth of savings for the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 1). This was the bill that removed hyphens and commas. The purpose of that bill was to remove one comma in the Patents Act and 11 hyphens in various Commonwealth statutes. Where it said 'e-mail' they decided to remove the hyphen and just make it 'email'—obviously on the technical understanding of email, probably from the Attorney-General—and where it said 'facsimile' or 'facsimile transmission' they changed it to 'fax' in 16 pieces of legislation. Somehow this is $350,000 worth of savings. In the way the government is calculating the savings on these bills, when you add it up that would amount to in the order of $10,000 per comma. There is a fair bit of hype going on in the total dollar figures of the savings to business and consumers through these bills.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You belittle the measures and then you question the numbers. How about getting on board?

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I hope that the government simply does better than it did last time. The member for Kooyong needs to understand that we are willing him to succeed in this. We just want him to do a good deal better than he did last time.

The other test that is often applied here is simply the number of regulations. Since the last repeal day I understand that the government has introduced 600 new regulations. Most of those regulations are good things to do. Simply having a regulation is not a measure of whether you have something stifling business. I give the simple example—and this was supported by the Liberals opposite and opposed by the Nationals opposite—of when we deregulated the wheat industry. When we got rid of the AWB monopoly it was a deregulation measure but it involved more regulations on the statute books than had previously been there. So to simply have the number of regulations as the test does not actually mount your policy case for whether you are providing more freewheeling opportunity for business to avoid unnecessary regulation.

That last time the government dealt with this issue they put a number of proposals. We are not arguing that there was not a cost saving to government but we would certainly argue with the merit of the proposals that they had. Last time they claimed savings, more than a quarter—28.3 per cent of the $700 billion—involved the watering down of consumer protections for the Future of Financial Advice reforms and giving a fresh licence for contractors to cut the wages of cleaners through the abolition of the Commonwealth Cleaning Services Guidelines. I do not dispute that there were savings there, but they were savings without merit. They were savings that hurt consumers and savings that hurt some of the lowest paid workers in this country.

If we get rid of regulations, is it automatically good? Getting rid of redundant regulations is a reasonable thing to do. We got rid of in the order of 16,000 regulations in the time we were in government. Sometimes, as I have said before, the introduction of additional pieces of regulation is of itself a deregulation measure—and the abolition of the AWB monopoly is a perfect example of where something like that was done. I acknowledged that the National Party opposed it. Almost everybody sitting around you, Minister Joyce, supported us on that one, but, as I have acknowledged already, your decision was to oppose us on that.

We will wait till we see the legislation in full before we make a decision obviously as to which way we are going to vote. Last time it took some time before the full list of what the government had abolished became clear.

Last time, the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor was abolished on red tape repeal day; only for the government to later realise that this was something they wanted to put in place; they have since committed to bring it back. So this was a position that existed; there had been bipartisan support for it to exist. On regulation repeal day, they got rid of it. But only shortly after they said: 'Oops! Didn't mean to do that one.'

The government acknowledge that simply getting rid of a regulation is not automatically a good thing. Some things are there for national security purposes. Many things are there for consumer protection purposes. Many issues are there for occupational health and safety. There are a range of regulations that are there for a good purpose. That said, if there are regulations that are redundant or if there are ways of streamlining the rules for business, that is a good thing to do.

Since the last repeal day, the Prime Minister has boasted about savings—and he referred specifically to the issue of carbon pricing—to households. In the interim, though, we had a budget which put a cost onto those same households and which eclipses the figures that the Prime Minister just provided to the parliament. In the same way, in the interim, we had the government propose for small businesses to be saddled with an avalanche of job applications when the government proposed that job seekers were going to have to put out 40 job applications a month. Not one small business thought that that idea from the government made the other proposals they had in red tape reduction worth it. Small business across my electorate and across the country knew quite clearly that, for all the talk of regulation repeal, what the government was putting in front of them was an avalanche of extra paperwork that they did not want.

The government also, in the comments made by the Prime Minister, referred to a number of reforms which have involved putting information onto the internet and providing access to information through various webpages, which are good initiatives. He has referred to the myGov website, which is a good initiative but an initiative that did not begin with the advent of this government. An initiative of people being able to access government services through the myGov website was well and truly set up and well and truly underway under the previous government.

The SmartGate system at airports was an initiative started under the Howard government; advanced fully during the years of the Labor government; and continued under this government. For it to be now announced in a ministerial statement by the Prime Minister of Australia as though it is something new, and part of red tape reduction day, when it has been a process going through Australia for near on a decade, is an absurd claim.

Similarly, I will concede that what they have said about myTax is true; that is theirs, because they have renamed e-tax, which was available under the Labor government, which was progressively being updated and which would have evolved in its next generation to be exactly what myTax is now. But they wanted to be able to claim that they had one new. So, for three different things that they were doing on the internet, they thought: 'Well, we'll at least rename one of them, because then it will be true that myTax is new'. Yes, that one is new, which does roughly something similar to where the e-tax system was already up to and was continuing to evolve.

Labor will work through the legislation when it is introduced, because at the moment all we have is the occasional op-ed from the parliamentary secretary opposite—

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Excellent articles! You should read them!

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I do read them. And I will concede that his latest op-ed was better than the previous ones I had read. So they are improving.

Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You never even did a regulatory impact statement!

Mr Joyce interjecting—

Mr Tony Burke (Watson, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister for Finance) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have a response for the Minister for Agriculture's interjection, but I am holding back. The final thing I will say is that the government makes much of regulatory impact statements, claiming that due process will be followed in cabinet. We have seen in this parliament how quickly all of that falls away the moment there is a deal with the crossbench—for example, look at the future of financial advice reforms. Are we to believe that—in the space of 24 hours, when the new deal was cut—there was a cabinet submission, with a regulatory impact statement attached, to work out what the new cost to the public was, on a change of policy that was being negotiated outside the Senate door? Is that what we are meant to believe? The answer here is quite simple. The government has been willing to ditch any of these processes the moment there is a political deal on the table with the crossbench. We have seen it time and again and we will see it into the future.

Getting rid of old regulations is a sensible thing to do. If the government does that, we will continue to support that, as we did last time. But, please, do not trumpet the ordinary work of government as though it is something new and exciting. And, please, do not come into this House—to the members opposite—claiming that they are somehow adding up these global figures, when what they are doing is attaching a dollar figure to hyphens and commas.