Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

This is the second time in two days I have had the pleasure to speak about the government's deregulation agenda. There are very few speakers on the opposite side and I think the reason for that is obvious. That reason is that it reveals Labor's culpability when it comes to the regulation that they imposed on Australia during their six years in government. Those opposite, despite the comments by the member for Fraser, know deep in their hearts how badly they have affected the productive capacity of our economy with binding coils of regulation—python-like, squeezing the life out of the hardworking businesses of Australia.

Labor cannot defend the indefensible, although they are certainly building a track record of doing exactly that. They are intent on bringing back the carbon tax and the mining tax and on changing immigration policy. Judging from the cavalcade of unaffordable promises they have made in opposition over just the last 12 months, they are intent on returning to the unsustainable spending practices that have robbed Australia of its economic freedom of action.

People must be scratching their heads about how it is possible, with a record like that achieved by the Labor and Labor-Greens governments from 2007 to 2013, that the member for Fraser can stand up in this House and talk about fairness and about 'well-understood' government responsibilities. How can he stand up and talk about the fiscal and economic responsibilities of government given the record they achieved in just six years? They gave us nearly $200 billion of achieved deficits, $123 billion of deficits projected across the forward estimates and peak debt rising to two-thirds of a trillion dollars—$667 billion or $667,000 million, whichever way you like to say it, is an obscene amount of money to have borrowed in six years. The member for Fraser stands up here and talks about fairness. How is it being fair to the Australian people and future generations to not only ruin Australia's economic freedom of action—our capacity to respond to another event like the global financial crisis—but to compound that problem by blocking measures in the Senate and elsewhere that would allow us to address the effects of their six years in government?

We are here to talk about deregulation. The member for Fraser called it a stunt and a whole range of other pejorative terms. What a contrast we have seen between just the first year of this government and the first year of the Rudd government in 2008. In 2008, I was both a senior Army officer and an acting senior public servant in one of our big national security agencies, so I got to see firsthand the intention of Rudd Labor when it first came into government—Mr Rudd's expansive promise that for every new regulation that came onto the statute books he would take one regulation off the statute books. It was commonly called the 'one on, one off' rule. Who would disagree with that? What a sensible thing to do! It is sensible policymaking to ensure that the regulatory impact of your policies is fully considered in cabinet submissions—that wherever possible we take away those binding coils of legislation and regulation that impede the productive capacity of our businesses.

The problem, though, was that that laudable undertaking was never delivered upon. As with so many of their policies, Labor were long on promise and short on delivery. The member for Fraser talked about how 'good government is about cleaning up the statute books'. I know that the member for Fraser has authored many books that he would probably like to clean up today—they are regularly mentioned in this place—but how can he say good government is about cleaning up the statute books when the net result of six years of Labor and Labor-Greens government was 21,000 new regulations? They did not discriminate either: those binding coils of regulation slithered even tighter, taking the very breath out of efficiency, productivity and investment.

In the five financial years from mid-2007 until mid-2012, multifactor productivity across Australia declined by three per cent. So bad was our performance that, when the Economist Intelligence Unit ranked 51 countries for productivity growth, Australia came in second last, just in front of Botswana. That is the effect that was achieved by those opposite in six years of government. The Reserve Bank governor, Glenn Stevens, has pointed out how vital improvements in this area are. He said this about improving productivity:

Improving productivity growth is just about the sole source of improving living standards …

He drew that linkage between binding coils of regulation, productivity and the living standards of everyday Australians, and he is absolutely right.

In my home state of Tasmania it is a persistent message from business owners, chambers of commerce and numerous other stakeholders that reinforces what a red-hot-button issue this is. The member for Fraser stood up here and—I take offence at this, Deputy Speaker—he spoke in pejorative terms about the team that I am a member of, a team that is led by the member for Kooyong, who by any measure has delivered well beyond his brief when it comes to deregulation. We have the member for Ryan, who is here, and other members like the member for Pearce, the member for Hindmarsh and the member for Reid, who spoke earlier. We go up and we sit with the member for Kooyong, and we take forward problems that really matter in our communities. At two repeal days now, we have come forward and said, 'Here is our response to those problems,' delivering $2.1 billion in productivity improvements, deregulation and legislation improvements. That is not something that you should scoff at, those opposite. And the member for Fraser comes in here and says it is some sort of stunt! These things are making a meaningful difference in the lives of people in my community.

The Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014 contains a number of key features, and I will speak to some of those now. It repeals pay slip reporting provisions in the superannuation law that would have increased the regulatory burden on employers beyond that which is currently imposed by the Fair Work regulation. It simplifies the taxation laws by removing inoperative provisions, consolidating duplicated provisions and moving longstanding regulations into the primary law. It reduces the regulatory burden on the associates of individuals who are seeking to obtain a shareholding of more than 15 per cent in certain financial sector companies. It rewrites the definition of 'Australia' into a single location in the tax law for use across all the tax laws in a simple and coherent form.

The member for Reid remarked on this matter of the definition of Australia. For me, the most important thing is to make sure that we do not leave Tasmania off the map. The three members in this House from Tasmania are making sure that they are never forgotten when the map of Australia is drawn.

In some of the other provisions in this bill, the government is providing certainty for employers that they do not need to be preparing for significant changes to their pay slip software in respect of superannuation reporting. We will do this by repealing duplicative provisions from the superannuation law that prescribe additional information on employee pay slips on superannuation contributions. Labor had intended that these regulations would be made, specifying that employers had to report on pay slips the amount of superannuation contributions and the date on which the employer expects to pay them. But, as I said earlier in my speech, on this issue, like so many other policy matters, Labor was long on promise but short on delivery and never made these regulations, so we are going to tidy that small matter up in this bill.

Importantly, this measure will not affect the information employees currently receive on superannuation contributions on their pay slip. Under the Fair Work Act, employers are already required to at least report details of employee superannuation entitlements that accrued during the pay period on an employee's pay slip. If employers were required to report actual contributions and payment dates, they would need to invest in major upgrades to their software, and the benefit for employees would be marginal at best. A lot of what we do is about cost benefit. It is about accepting a little bit of risk so that we do not impose unnecessary and additional cost on those who are making a living, who are adding to the productive capacity of our country.

Most employers pay their superannuation. Even if reporting actual superannuation contributions on pay slips were mandated, employers who did not comply with their superannuation requirements would be unlikely to disclose this on pay slips, so what is the point? I note that 70 per cent of employees who do not receive their superannuation entitlement from their employer, as the member for Reid said, do not actually make a complaint to the ATO until after they have left the employer, so changing the information on superannuation contributions required to be reported on pay slips is unlikely to change that.

It is also important to note that the ATO already investigate every complaint received about unpaid super by that small number of employers who do the wrong thing. Their risk analysis work allows the ATO to target actions against high-risk industries and employers. But, as I said, the vast majority do the right thing and pay their staff their super entitlements. In 2014, as we know, employees increasingly can typically check online, via their super fund, whether their employer is doing the right thing. So the mechanical, handraulic need for this measure is certainly reduced.

We are going to consolidate and repeal some tax provisions in this bill. We are going to simplify the taxation law by consolidating duplicated taxation admin provisions contained in various taxation acts into a single location in the act. We are also going to repeal spent or redundant taxation laws, such as the older harsh penalty regimes, and move longstanding regulations into the primary law. Overall, the changes will result in a material reduction in the size of the taxation laws, with one or two sections replacing in excess of 50 provisions. Removing inoperative provisions, consolidating duplicated provisions and moving longstanding regulations into the primary law do not alter any of the current tax policies. However, it does make the tax law easier to use and easier to comply with—and I say hooray to that. Tidying up our tax laws in line with good legislative practice, contrary to what the member for Fraser said, is an important part of the care and maintenance of our tax system.

Another measure in this bill removes an unnecessary burden on the associates of a person, for example a person's partner, relative or related company, who is seeking approval for a shareholding of greater than 15 per cent in certain financial sector companies, like banks and insurance companies. This approval requirement applies to an associate even where the associate has no actual shareholding in the company. The measure removes the technical legislative trap that imposes an unnecessary legislative and regulatory burden. Importantly, this change in no way compromises our ability to examine a shareholder's controlling interest. Associates with a shareholding are still required to be considered as part of the main applicant's shareholding to determine if they need to seek approval from the Treasurer for that shareholding. In addition, the Treasurer retains authority to block shareholdings where practical control can be asserted by an associate and the Treasurer is satisfied that it is in the national interest that the shareholding be divested.

Earlier I talked about a team led by the member for Kooyong, with some of the members here present as part of that team, doing what I consider to be good work twice a year that will continue in the future. These repeal days are making a meaningful difference in relation to that binding regulation in Australia at the moment. But that is only part of the equation. Every portfolio minister has to search for and come up with red-tape reduction measures, and in relation to this bill the Treasurer had done exactly that. I congratulate the Treasurer for delivering on part of that deregulation agenda that is so important to the future multifactor productivity of our country.

This bill takes another step towards achieving a single Income Tax Assessment Act for Australia. It reinforces the government's resolve to implement our vital deregulation agenda, to strip away the binding coils of as much red tape as possible in our community and to help Australians more easily navigate their way efficiently through legislation and regulation. It is one contribution to this government's bonfire of bureaucracy, but an important step, nevertheless, on the long road to sensible economic reform. I commend the bill to the House.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill forms part of the government's repeal day stunt. The government makes a lot of grandiose claims about their deregulation agenda. We have heard feverish talk of a 'bonfire of regulations'. The government claims that they will achieve savings in compliance costs of up to $1 billion dollars from their repeal day theatrics.

Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is $2.1 billion.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

There is more rhetorical nonsense from the member for Bass, who is one of the chief culprits in this area. They are not able to say where this fanciful figure of $1 billion, or the fanciful figure of $2.1, was plucked from. Much of repeal day is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. With tremendous fanfare and much boasting—including from the member for Bass, who is one of the more boastful of those on the other side about the supposed marvels of the deregulation activity that the government is engaging in—on each of its two repeal days this year the government has introduced a statute law revision bill and an amending acts repeal bill. With all of the talk of bonfires and wars and slashing red tape on the part of the Prime Minister and the member for Kooyong—the leader of this exercise, according to the member for Bass—and their colleagues, you would think that pieces of legislation like this contained some kind of bold reform. You would be wrong, though. The statute law revision bills are nothing more than housekeeping exercises. Every year Australian parliaments pass these bills, which correct typos, update drafting, and improve formatting and numbering, among other things. Is this the Liberal Party's idea of slashing red tape? How many businesses are held back by typos in obscure Commonwealth acts of parliament? How many Australians feel burdened by numbering errors in old statutes? Given the pomp and ceremony attached to the repeal day media stunt, you might be underwhelmed to discover that one of the bold reforms this government is progressing is the removal of the hyphen from the word 'email' wherever it appears in Commonwealth law.

The amending acts repeal bills are even more farcical. I am sorry that the member for Bass, after all the rhetorical froth we just heard from him, has left the chamber and is not here to hear what is actually going on with this repeal day stunt. All these bills do is to repeal legislation which amends or repeals prior legislation. Technically, these bills are still on the books—but they have no effect. Their operation is spent. Their removal has not one scintilla of real legal consequence. Indeed, the repealed bills will remain on the Commonwealth's legislation register in any case as historical acts! The only purpose of these bills is to let the Liberal government crow about the number, not the substance, of regulations they have repealed. What hollow numbers they throw around. When the Liberal government says they are repealing 10,000 pieces of legislation, they neglect to mention that the vast bulk of those pieces of legislation have not been in force for decades. We should expect nothing more from a government already, just a year into its term, known for its disingenuousness.

Of course, the Labor Party has a genuine belief in lightening the load of regulation where that is appropriate. We are the party of meaningful deregulation. We are the party of banking sector liberalisation, sweeping competition reform, the floating of the dollar and the slashing of tariffs. We do not shy away from removing regulations which do not serve a worthwhile purpose. We believe, unlike the government, that we need regulation to protect our environment, to protect labour standards and to protect consumers, but we have never supported regulation for its own sake. So, when the government puts forward measures like those in this bill, we are happy to support them.

This bill amends several acts dealing with taxation, superannuation and shareholdings in certain financial sector companies. The member for Riverina, when speaking to this bill, compared it to removing 'small grains of sand from an engine'. It does remove a small number of regulations and makes some mechanical changes to some legislation.

Schedule 1 to this bill amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 to repeal the pay slip reporting provisions. The pay slip reporting provisions in the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act, the SI(S) Act, require employers to include in employee pay slips information prescribed by the regulations. There is no political party in Australia that has done more to boost the retirement savings of Australians than Labor. Unpaid superannuation liability is a problem that some Australians have to face. Recent estimates place that figure at approximately $1.3 billion, so it is right that there are measures on the statute books that try to remove that problem and that try to ensure that superannuation which is required to be paid is paid. There are current protections under the Fair Work Act for the reporting of superannuation liability on pay slips. These require the payments either made or liable to be made to be reported on the pay slip, and they are not being changed.

The requirements for superannuation guarantee payments to be made within 28 days of the end of a quarter are also not changing. The provisions that this bill is removing were enacted in legislation—that is, in the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act—but have never been a practical reality for businesses because the regulations that were needed to enact them were never put in place. Just to make that clear, there are current protections in the Fair Work Act; that is good. The government is not changing those current protections. What the government is doing here is removing a legislative requirement that never actually came into effect for any Australian business because the regulations that they called for were never put in place.

There is no doubt that the intentions of the original changes were good. The reality for employers, particularly small businesses, was potentially increased costs via software and other upgrades. It is arguable if the requirements being repealed would have any effect at all on those negligent and unscrupulous employers who intend not to pay superannuation. Employees will still be able to check with their fund if payments have been made by their employer. Labor intends to closely monitor the issue of unpaid superannuation payments. We will examine closely options to ensure that compliance by employers is insisted on, because we believe in the superannuation guarantee as a means of boosting retirement savings of Australia. But let us not overstate the effect of the repeal that is occurring here. There are already protections under the Fair Work Act. That is good thing; they will remain.

Schedule 2 makes some mechanical and non-controversial amendments to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 to consolidate duplicated provisions, repeal redundant laws and move longstanding regulations into primary law. It is not something that one could point to as having a dramatic impact on Australian business.

Schedule 3 to this bill amends the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act 1998 so that persons who do not hold a direct controlling interest in a financial sector company will no longer be deemed to have a stake in that financial sector company solely as a consequence of their associates' direct control interest in the company. Under the existing law, a person must obtain approval from the Treasurer to hold a stake in a financial sector company of more than 15 per cent. A stake is defined in clause 10 of schedule 1 of the act as the aggregate of the direct control interest held by that person and the direct control interest held by associates of that person. 'Associates' is widely defined in clause 4 of schedule 1 of the FS(S) Act to include a person's relatives, partners, related companies and other parties.

Where a person acquires a direct control interest in a financial sector company of more than 15 per cent, the associate of the person is also required to obtain approval to exceed the 15 per cent shareholding limit. This can be despite the associate holding no direct control interest or, indeed, any interest in the financial sector company. This imposes a burden for associates to reasonably comply with the law, particularly where associates are not aware of the requirement to seek the Treasurer's approval.

The amendments in this bill will mean a person who does not hold a direct control interest in a financial sector company will no longer be deemed to hold a stake in that company solely as a consequence of their associates' direct control interest in that company. Only where a person holds a direct control interest of any size would the interest be aggregated with that of the person's associates to determine the total stake held. For an associate holding a direct control interest in a financial sector company, the associate's stake is equivalent to the aggregate of their own stake and other associates, including the person acquiring the actual direct control interest. The associate is required to seek the Treasurer's approval where the aggregated stake exceeds the 15 per cent shareholding limit.

Schedule 4 rewrites provisions in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to unify the definition of 'Australia' for tax purposes. This is a non-controversial, mechanical change without any fiscal impact.

The member for Riverina's muted description of this legislation is appropriate. These are worthwhile, if not earthshattering, measures. Labor is happy to support them. But we must complain when the passage of legislation like this, with our support, is used as an excuse by those opposite to grandstand about the supposed regulatory overreach of the last Labor government and to tout their own supposed credentials in deregulation. Perhaps we can forgive the coalition for forgetting about the at least 6,000 redundant or obsolete regulations repealed by the last Labor government. We did not feel the need to throw a stunt like Repeal Day to celebrate this achievement. The use of a light touch in regulation, the removal of regulations which no longer serve their purpose, and keeping a keen eye on any unintended effect of regulation on business and the community are part and parcel of how modern Labor governs.

If you ignore the rhetoric of the Liberals, the facts indicate that Labor governments are not in any sense prone to overregulation. The Liberals like to say that the last Labor government was responsible for some 21,000 new regulations. But, again, their numbers are deceptive.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You were not responsible? It was someone else's fault.

Mark Dreyfus (Isaacs, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Attorney General) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

No, in answer to the interjection, I am going to explain what they were. Fully 4,200 of these regulations were, in fact, tariff concession orders—regulations that reduce costs for businesses and that were requested by businesses. More than 3,400 of these regulations were airworthiness directives, which address safety issues.

Are tariff concession orders requested by business the kinds of regulations that the Abbott government thinks are holding back our nation? Is that the kind of regulation that the Abbott government thinks is holding back the country? Are airworthiness directives the kinds of regulations that the Abbott government thinks are holding back our country? Is anyone from the Liberal Party seriously saying that we do not need airworthiness directives to uphold air safety standards in our country? I doubt it. It simply makes the point that, at all times, in the case of all regulation, it is necessary to examine the purpose that is being served by the regulation.

This kind of mad incantation of raw numbers gets us nowhere, because it removes attention from the purpose for which the regulations were created. The mad incantation of: 'We have repealed 1,000 acts,' or 'We have repealed 10,000 regulations,' as I have attempted to make clear in this speech, ignores the actual substance of what is being repealed. Repealing amending acts of parliament from 1901 to 1967, which was the exercise on the first repeal day, or repealing the amending acts passed by the parliament from 1967 through into the seventies achieves precisely nothing, and the Liberal Party should not boast or pretend that it, in fact, has achieved something. In fact, if we must throw around raw numbers, the all-time record year for added pages of regulation was not under either of Labor prime ministers Gillard or Rudd but in 2006, under the Liberal Prime Minister John Howard.

As I have said, Labor is happy to support measures like those in this bill. When the government proposes real, useful deregulation, we are happy to work with them. But it is hard to stand the self-congratulation, the media stunts and the misrepresentation of Labor's record which has come alongside the government's supposed deregulation bills. I commend the bill to the House.

Jane Prentice (Ryan, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The former speaker from the opposition claims that this bill is no more than good housekeeping. Could I just suggest to him that, if his self-titled modern Labor had kept their own house in order during the chaotic years of the Labor-Greens-Labor alliance for the last six years, we would not need to be here today cleaning up the mess that they left. I rise today to speak on the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014. Yet again, the coalition government is presenting a bill that seeks to reduce the amount of duplication between various pieces of legislation and reduce the compliance load on business and, at the same time, ensure businesses are not, by omission, breaking the law.

Under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 employers are required to report on pay slips the amount of superannuation contributions earned and the date on which the employer is expected to pay them. Of course, this is quite unreasonable since cash flows within businesses change on a near-daily basis. But, of course, those opposite have no idea about running a business. They might have had a hand in running a few into the ground but not in successfully employing people and keeping a business prosperous, which is why they think this minor amendment is about trying to hide superannuation contributions from employees.

This again demonstrates to those of us on the government side how little faith the ALP have in themselves and their ability to craft good laws. The Fair Work Act 2009 and Fair Work Regulations 2009, both written and passed by those opposite, require employers to report on pay slips the superannuation entitlements earned or actually paid. Is their own legislation so dodgy that they have no faith in it?

What we have is three separate acts of parliament that each require employers to report superannuation entitlements. How do you suppose that should appear on a pay slip? Should it be just once, because that fulfils the requirement of all three acts, or as separate line items? Would that make an employee believe they are actually receiving three times as much superannuation? Common sense must prevail, and the system has to be made easier for both employees and employers.

But in order to do that some tough decisions need to be made by those opposite. Do they want to be part of the solution, or are they content with continuing to be the problem? Stop being negative for the sake of it and support this bill that simplifies the reporting of superannuation contributions on pay slips, as well as deleting some spent provisions and continuing the rewrite of tax legislation begun under the Keating government. Short-term opportunism is no substitute for long-term thinking and planning. Labor has no plan for the future, no plan beyond the next electoral cycle and probably no plans after lunch but sniping from the sidelines and suffering relevance deprivation. But, of course, I am exaggerating, because, as we know, Labor does have one plan. Indeed, they have a plan to re-introduce the world's biggest economy-wide carbon tax, which was not effective in lowering carbon emissions by one single gram.

The government is not trying to hide workers' superannuation entitlements. We are just trying to make it as simple to understand as possible. Surely, simplicity in understanding how your retirement nest egg is working is something all workers want. When I look at my pay slip I want to easily see what my contribution to my superannuation is. This allows you to plan for your future and your family's future, and an easy to understand single number is the best way to do that.

Those opposite continue to grasp at straws in trying to discredit this government because they know they have no real ammunition. This is a government of responsible fiscal management. This is the government Australia needs after the years of poor and reckless financial management by the Labor-Greens alliance. The coalition government will lead Australia back to financial prosperity, although Labor did send businesses to the wall and hurt consumers.

The other important measure this bill takes is to define 'Australia' for taxation purposes. While this may seem self-evident, the standard definition of Australia does not cover seabeds or any oil, gas or other precious and semi-precious material under the sea. This bill defines those areas above and below sea which fall under the provisions of the Australian Taxation Act. When you consider the vast potential of the Joint Petroleum Development Area in the Timor Sea, this is an important measure to get right. So I again ask those opposite whether they are part of the solution or remain the problem. I call on them to show genuine bipartisanship in the interests of Australia and vote this bill through. I commend this bill to the House.

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014. I have listened with interest to the contributions, the chest thumping, coming from those opposite about this. It is almost as if the government see this bill as the pinnacle of their legislative achievements. I was here for the first repeal day, and I was here for the second repeal day. I want to contrast the speeches made about that and the speeches that we have had over the last few days and weeks about the loss of former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and former Queensland Treasurer Wayne Goss. These speeches about repeal day need to be seen through the prism of these political leaders of vision. The shadows this casts on the political pygmies opposite are unbelievable. It shows how small their vision is. We have had people coming in here to talk about what is effectively 'turning up for work day'. It is not repeal day; it is just 'turning up for work day'. This is what every government does. Every government needs to get rid of redundant bits of legislation when they can.

Those opposite talk about their vision, about where their great ship of state is headed with Prime Minister Abbott at the tiller. But he has no vision at all. He is worried about the barnacles and what needs to be taken off, but he has no vision whatsoever as to where the ship should be heading. They come up and say: 'Everyone that has turned up at work today, you need to be celebrated. In fact, we need to give you a medal.' They call it repeal day, but it is really just the work of good government. Regulations are not inherently evil, as those opposite seem to be suggesting. Most of the front bench of the government were here under the Howard government in the 41st Parliament. Most of the front bench of the government today were members of the Howard government. They were part of the government that brought—

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

What a government that was!

Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

As the member would acknowledge, the Howard government brought in more regulations than any government in the history of Australia. He is inherently saying that a government is good if it brings in regulations. So all the political pygmies opposite who have come in beating their chests and saying repeal day is a wonderful thing have somehow flipped? I can understand why the front bench has not changed. They are still set firmly in their ways from 1955 or 1956—whatever year it is that they have calibrated as being the perfect year. But the fresh blood of the 44th Parliament come in here and say, 'We turned up for work today and the people of Australia should be proud of us.' Even in the military, where they do give out medals for service, you have to be in the service for at least three years before you get that medal. But you have been here for one year, you are in your second year, and you are saying, 'This repeal day is our most magnificent achievement.'

We have heard valedictory speeches from both sides of the chamber about Wayne Goss—I just delivered mine up in the Federation Chamber—and Gough Whitlam and their incredible vision for Australia. And what does 'Rear Admiral Abbott' have to offer the people of Australia? Repeal day. 'Ladies and gentlemen, we've hunted down some commas. We've changed the words "electronic mail" to "email". Please give us an Order of Australia or some appropriate recognition. Bring back knight and dame honours'—because we have tracked down a comma or something! This shows the paucity of vision from the Liberal and National parties. Unbelievable! The sooner that front bench gets changed the better. Bring in some of the new blood—the people that actually have a bit of vision and a bit of hope for a future Australia—not the idiots that have swallowed this line that somehow we should not pay a little bit now rather than make future generations pay a lot more. That is fundamentally what has happened.

Maybe it is something to do with the people that came through the Howard government. They just have not seen beyond 2007 when the Howard government finished. They did not come to government as a group of adults with a vision. They set out their principles before the election; I will give them credit for that. I read their booklets and I heard their speeches about no taxes, no cuts to the pension and no cuts to education; I heard it so often I know it better than I knew my own campaign slogans. The reality after the election is that the only political currency which counts—trust—was broken time after time after time. We see it with the GP co-payment, which surely personifies red tape. They are going to have red tape on every visit to the doctor, with $2 in red tape for every sick person and $5 given to the never-never. And the way they have sold this! This morning the health minister, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Senate were all over the shop. It is like they have read William Custer's playbook about how to sell a policy to people. It is unbelievable!

But back to the legislation before us, the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014, which, as I said, I am calling the 'Turning up for Work Day Bill,' celebrated by those opposite, a government that on every single day they have been in office have brought in three or four regulations, even on the weekend! I am not making fun of them for doing that; that is what governments do. Regulations are not inherently bad. But for them to turn around and say: our greatest achievement—and the people of Australia should celebrate the fact—is that we hunted down a couple of commas and changed the word "electronic mail" to "email". It is unbelievable.

You can see the proper context for how that first repeal day should be treated. Some of the new people in the 44th Parliament were here, reading out their prepared lines about how wonderful it was that they had got rid of a couple of commas. But what happened to the legislation? We pay the people in Treasury $2.1 million a year to track down these stray commas. But what happened to it? Did they rush it over to the other place to ensure that it was turned into law? No. Nothing happened with it until almost the second repeal day. It is smoke and mirrors. The smoke should be blown away and the mirrors should be smashed to reveal that this is what governments do.

Governments look over legislation and most of these regulations are doing good things—for example, regulating aircraft safety—unless those opposite want to sign up to only flying planes that have not had regulations in terms of their safety signed off on; I do not want to do that—and are not hurting anyone. They are not an albatross around the neck of Australia. One particularly puerile comment from a member opposite was that it was a python squeezer, a cobra striker—I cannot remember which one—but the serpentine reference was completely deluded. This legislation is what governments do; they turn up and sort out things.

Labor is supporting this legislation; it is not particularly controversial. But the fake chest beating is controversial. I find it repugnant, hypocritical and hard to swallow, as do the people of Australia. However, schedule 1 in this bill amends the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act to repeal the payslip-reporting provisions. I heard the member for Ryan, my neighbour on the other side of the Brisbane River, say that this was a bad thing. I am not sure whether the member for Ryan has had the experience of a business going belly up or of a constituent coming in after thinking they had a superannuation payment going on for years and then finding out that the superannuation had not been paid and that the business was belly up. The modern equivalent of the GEERS scheme will not pay superannuation and, for people who are close to retirement, this can be heartbreaking.

I noted the contribution of the member for Reid where he, as a former employer of a business that employed many people in the pub industry, made the point about how important it is that your workers understand where their superannuation contribution is going and that it has been paid, because it can be particularly heartbreaking.

As I said, the Labor Party is supporting this legislation. When it comes to superannuation, I will stand on the Labor Party's record any day. We have done more to boost retirement savings of Australians than those opposite have ever done. They are fundamentally opposed to superannuation. They attack it whenever they can but, thankfully, after difficult implementation times under the Hawke and Keating governments, Australians now accept that superannuation is a part of life. Accumulation schemes have obviously brought in an incredible amount of superannuation, with approximately $1.3 billion now being managed. It will continue to increase. Incidentally, because of that, we can now look to providing those funds management services in Asia. As the middle class emerges, the skills that Australians have when it comes to managing money can now be retailed and taken over to other countries. That is something that we do particularly well. That is a part of the Asian focus that we need to have in selling our services and engaging with the emerging markets of India, China, Indonesia, Malaysia and the like. Obviously, despite the snickering from those opposite when that was announced as an election policy back in 2006-07, we have managed to do that and will continue to do so.

The amendments in this legislation are not particularly troubling. As I said, the Labor Party will be supporting it. But I do take issue, as I said, with this repeal day stunt and all the government's grandiose claims about the deregulation agenda. Unless you look at what the regulations do, you cannot make those sweeping statements. In fact, time and time again, the government has been saved by the opposition in the House of Representatives and by other people in the Senate from themselves. They are so focused on talking about bonfires, slashing red tape and all that emotive language that they have not done the real hard yards. It is a typical conservative government, which, in terms of economic reform, are not prepared to do the hard yards and to make significant changes. When it comes to managing the economy, it is up to Labor to do the hard yards. The government now moan about the AAA credit rating given to the Australian economy by the three ratings agencies, something never achieved by those opposite. These are not left-wing agencies; these are the ratings agencies of the world.

I note the Treasurer has particular challenges, but I am waiting for him to come in and apologise to the House after hearing him, year after year, talking about how economic challenges were irrelevant. He never acknowledged the global financial crisis and the challenges that it brought to the people of Australia. He never acknowledged what it would be like to have 200,000 people out of work and the havoc that that wreaks upon communities and individuals—the tears in school playgrounds, the suicides and the heartache associated with unemployment when it hits particular communities. No. I am yet to hear the Treasurer come in and actually acknowledge some of those challenges. Well, now, as revenue starts to collapse for this government—as iron ore goes below US$70, with the challenges that will bring, and as coal comes off the high prices that it was at during the 40th and 41st parliaments, when John Howard and Peter Costello just watched the money trickle into the Treasury coffers—it will be interesting to see whether the Treasurer has the ticker it takes to lead this ship of state, the ticker it takes to lead a government and a nation during difficult times. And I can tell you this for free: having these cheap-stunt days will not fool anyone in the Australian community at all.

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

It gives me great pleasure to rise and talk on the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014, if for no other reason than that the member for Moreton has ceased that tirade. To the members of the public in the gallery, I apologise, because what you have seen is the worst example of Australian politics. If you were up there in the gallery, drifting in and out of consciousness as that tirade went on, you would have been convinced that the member for Moreton would end his contribution by saying, 'And I oppose this bill, because it is so bad, and I've spent 15 minutes talking about how bad this bill is.' But no: he will support this bill. You heard 15 minutes of a contribution on a bill that he supports, believe it or not.

Alan Tudge (Aston, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Imagine if he disliked it!

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

Yes, imagine if he disliked it. I tell you what, he has fire in the belly. But I say to all members of the public in the gallery, thanks for hanging in there. What we saw from the member for Moreton was a continuation of Labor's denial: the denial that over their six years of government we saw a budgetary position that is now a ruinous position—the words of Wayne Swan, It was a government that said, 'We did for small business what no government has done before'. All they did was increase the number of regulations by 21,000. But there was nothing wrong with that; nothing to see here! In the world view of the member for Moreton, or the view of those last six years, there is nothing to see here: 'We were a great government, and there were no problems.'

So, fundamentally, it is an example of the Labor Party just not learning their lesson. The member for Moreton also said that today's bill and all the repeal days are just a matter of turning up for work today, and this is what governments do. Does he not see the great irony when he says that—that the clear inference is that for six years the Rudd, Gillard, and Rudd governments did not turn up for work, and did not do what governments are supposed to do? If that was the case, why did the number of regulations increase by 21,000, strangling small businesses in this country? Every time he says that there is no problem, that there is nothing to see here, he absolutely condemns all the small-business owners in my electorate who have said to me that for many years—and it got so much worse under the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd governments—they have been strangled in regulation and costly red tape.

Having grown up in a small-business family myself, I saw firsthand the costs of red tape. It is not just a theoretical exercise that we discuss in this House. My parents and I have very vivid memories of me growing up and seeing my parents sitting at their desks filling out paperwork until all hours of the night. They would be at work during the day. At six o'clock in the morning they would get up and go to work. They would get home at probably seven or eight o'clock at night, try to enjoy some time with the family and then get started on the paperwork at 10 or 11 o'clock for a couple of hours. This has a real impact on people's lives. So, when the member for Moreton, the member for Fraser and the member for Isaacs sit there whingeing and moaning about today's bill and then vote for it, that suggests to me that they have no understanding of small business and no desire to engage with the government on this task that we are trying to achieve—for the first time in many decades, to actually reduce the regulatory burden that the Australian government imposes on our citizens. And I am not so surprised to see it from the member for Fraser and the member for Isaacs—two academic, bookworm types who probably have absolutely no idea about small business. But I think I expected a bit more from the member for Moreton, and unfortunately I was left wanting.

But I do want to get to explaining some of the substance of the bill in front of us—the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014, which implements a range of improvements to Australia's laws and, as we have been talking about, removes costly and unnecessary red tape. The government does recognise that while some degree of regulation is of course necessary, bad regulation and too much regulation hurts productivity and deters innovation and investment, and that ultimately costs jobs. There is a real-life dimension to the issues we are discussing today. The member for Fraser, in a sort of nasty, snide way, had a go at us for our coalition deregulatory task force, which I am a member of and which is ably led by my friend the member for Kooyong. The whole purpose of the coalition's deregulatory task force, of which I was the Victorian member, was to give members of parliament an opportunity to bring real-life examples from our electorates—on the frontline, not theoretical examples or examples from peak bodies, but examples of where the interface between a small business and government is causing issues for constituents of ours. I found the process extraordinarily worthwhile, and a number of fantastic outcomes have been achieved by that task force. So, I want to again congratulate the member for Kooyong for leading that. It was a privilege to be a part of it. But it is a whole-of-government approach. Our task force was quite a minute part of that.

We have set up in every department specific deregulation teams to search for those deregulatory changes that we can make in each and every portfolio. This led to our holding of the first two repeal days. We said before the election that we would repeal $1 billion of red tape each year. After our second 2014 repeal day, a net reduction of $2.1 billion in compliance costs was achieved. There is quite a complex process in determining that $2.1 billion reduction, but the benefits of a $2.1 billion reduction in red tape flow into many, many billions of dollars. The multiplier effect is quite phenomenal.

Ultimately, we want to make it easier for businesses and individuals to get on and spend their precious energy on what they do best, and that is improving their bottom lines, creating a better life for their families and also creating more jobs. Particularly in the small business sector, I can tell you now that employees are more like family than employees. There is nothing better than a small business that can have their employees grow with them, develop with them and, hopefully, share in the spoils of a successful small business.

If this bill helps that process in any way, I think in this House it would be much more gracious of people like the member for Moreton, who is a friend of mine, to get up and say, 'I support this bill and I support it for these reasons.' If he only talks for a couple of minutes, that is fine—talk for two minutes—but to go on a 15-minute tirade, absolutely pillorying the bill, and then conclude by saying, 'And I commend the bill to the House,' is embarrassing. It is the worst feature of Australian politics. I remember when I was a private citizen observing Australian politics. You would sort of sit there and you would want to grab the TV screen and say, 'Just say you agree with this.' There is enough going on in this House that members opposite can get an opportunity to try and whack us on, but, where we agree, let's just agree and move on. I think it was a very ungracious contribution.

The bill before us contains a number of features that other speakers have gone into much more detail on than I will, but for completeness I want to cover off on them. Schedule 1 repeals the pay-slip reporting provisions in the SI(S) Act that increase the regulatory burden on employers beyond what is currently imposed under the Fair Work legislation. The changes, which have been spoken about by other members, remove some duplication in reporting what superannuation contributions have been made. It is relatively uncontroversial and makes sense. Schedule 2 to the bill is something that is quite close to my heart. It contains a range of changes that simplify the tax laws by consolidating duplicated tax administration provisions and it also bundles a whole lot of tax acts into a single set of provisions. I was one of those unfortunate people in the tax profession, in my former life as a tax lawyer, trying to juggle a half a dozen different acts with certain provisions that were cross-referenced into an entirely different act. If you had put all of the tax acts that I had to deal with on a daily basis on a set of scales, they would have weighed something like six or eight kilos. It is quite extraordinary. So anything we can do to achieve what I hope is the ultimate outcome of a single tax act—the process was started in the mid-nineties and we sort of got half the way there but never actually concluded it—is good news. Schedule 2 is definitely a standout feature of this bill for me.

Schedule 3 to the bill amends the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act by making some sensible changes around associate tests and reporting for associates who may or may not have an interest in a company. These sorts of associate tests are often there for really good reasons, to ensure that we avoid collusion and conflicts of interest, but here I am quite convinced that the changes proposed will not end up with a diminution of any protections; they just remove quite a redundant rule. Schedule 4 rewrites the definition of Australia into a single location in the tax law. Over the last few weeks, I have heard lots of members opposite deriding this change. We should not overstate it, but I can tell you right now that having multiple definitions in different tax acts cross-referenced against each other is extraordinarily difficult for any type of understanding of the tax law. I dealt with small businesses, medium-sized businesses and large businesses on a very regular basis. Anything we can do to make the tax affairs of Australian taxpayers easier should be applauded in this House and should not be derided. So I think rewriting the current definition of Australia is outstanding.

I want to conclude by saying that I think our approach here is working. When we discuss legislation like this and when we have our repeal days, we are saying to the public, 'We have a determination from the Prime Minister down to the humblest backbencher to make your lives easier in any way we can.' I welcomed the words of Jennifer Westacott, the CEO of the Business Council of Australia, who put it quite succinctly: 'Finally, we have reached a turning point in dealing with the high costs and inefficiencies faced by business and individuals in Australia every single day.' I think that is right. For too many years now we have accepted that a new government or a new minister want to put their touch on a particular policy area, and so we just pile on more regulations. In contrast, this government has said, 'We want to get out of your lives to the greatest extent possible.' We are not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater and remove necessary regulations for protections of our citizens, but we do not want to wedge ourselves into your life where it is unnecessary. So I say to my electorate, the people of Deakin, that, whilst this is not particularly sexy stuff, I can assure you that we are doing the hard work behind the scenes to make your life easier, to make it easier for you to grow your businesses and employment opportunities for your employees, which will hopefully mean greater opportunities for your children as well. I commend the bill to the House and again congratulate everybody for their wonderful work in this space.

Terri Butler (Griffith, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak to the bill that is before the House. I listened with interest to the contribution of my friend the member for Deakin. He made a point about the way we deal with legislation in this House and the way it is spoken about. He suggested that people should be a bit more straight-up in the way they talk about a bill such as this one and should not pillory the government's approach by saying it is some sort of stunt. He suggested that people should just stand up and say they agree with the content of the bill and not complain about the way in which the bill is presented by the government and the messaging around it—the spin, in more blunt language. But the difficulty with that proposition is that this bill and the bill that preceded it in the House today are part of spin. This suggestion that these worthy but pedestrian parts of the business of the parliament somehow constitute a magical red tape repeal deregulation agenda is wrong. This bill and the preceding bill are, as I said, just part of the ordinary work of the parliament—reviewing laws and making small, incremental changes to respond to community needs. So to make a song and dance about these bills as though they are a part of some sort of magical repeal and deregulation achievement of this government invites the sort of contribution that the member for Deakin has complained about.

If you want to talk about spin, the corporations legislation deregulation bill that was before the House this morning was not a deregulation bill at all; it was actually about a very important issue. It was about striking the balance between the right to protest and the rights of shareholders in public companies to have value for their shares. That is a really important concern for our democracy. You have to give people the right to protest the decisions of companies in which they hold shares. Equally, you have to strike a balance that prevents the small minority from causing damage to the value of the shares of the majority.

Protest is a really important part of what makes our democracy very strong. For example, today in the electorate of Bonner, which is next door to my electorate, casual employees at a factory have been protesting for equal pay for casual employees. They are protesting in a traditional form. Similarly, under the 100-member rule, which was the subject of the previous bill, shareholders might want to call an extraordinary general meeting of a company and seek to ventilate concerns via a motion of that company. The previous bill, which we supported, quite properly sought to strike that balance by saying that you cannot use the 100-member rule to get an EGM but you can use 100 members to get an issue onto the agenda of an AGM. It is a very important issue: how do we strike that balance to allow for the proper ventilation of genuine concerns and, at the same time, not allow smaller groups or minorities to cause damage to the interests of a company? Of course, when you are talking about the interests of a company, you are talking about the interests of its shareholders.

Instead of spinning that bill as being about that issue, it was spun as a deregulation bill. Those sorts of funny approaches to spin are, unfortunately, very common from the coalition. Who can forget the names of some of the bills during the Howard era? For example, they gave workplace relations bills names such as 'More work, better pay' when in fact they were going to have the opposite effect. If the member for Deakin is concerned about contributions being made that deal with views about the messaging around bills then perhaps some straighter approaches to the naming of bills and the reduction of spin for those bills might go some way to assisting with that.

Similarly the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014 has a little bit of spin in the title as though it were some massive achievement for the repeal of red tape. In fact, it is very straightforward legislation that deals with four groups of items that are important, useful and supportable; but this is part of the ordinary, everyday work of the parliament and no fanfare is required to do it. 'Look at me, look at me! Aren't I great? I'm doing a repeal day bill.' This sort of nonsense is not that helpful. This sort of legislation should be discussed in the straight-up way suggested by the member for Deakin previously.

The first schedule of the bill goes to superannuation reporting on pay slips. This is an important issue. It is going to repeal the provision that will require an employer to state on pay slips the amount of superannuation contributions and the date on which they are expected to be paid. There is already an obligation to state the liability for superannuation on the pay slip.

This provision in the SI(S) Act that is the subject of the current bill is slightly different, in that it would require the amount of the contribution and the date on which it is expected to be paid, and that is important. It is important because there are, unfortunately, unscrupulous or disorganised employers out there who fail to pay superannuation on time. That can usually be rectified pretty quickly via paying the superannuation guarantee charge once the mistake is noticed or to rectify a deliberate omission, but if the company goes broke, if the company ends up in insolvency, it can be extremely difficult to recover superannuation contributions from the company. Of course, there are entitlement protection schemes in place, but that just socialises the loss to the taxpayer, when in fact the obligation ought to have been borne by the employer itself.

I guess the other issue that arises when superannuation is not paid is that, if there is a gap in the payments of superannuation contributions, there can sometimes be a gap in the superannuation fund taking income insurance premiums through that superannuation process. If a person then suffers an injury and seeks to rely on their income protection insurance, or the other insurance that they thought they had via their superannuation scheme, but the premiums have not been met, that can leave people—and this has happened—in a situation where they do not have the income protection insurance. They do not have the insurance provided under their superannuation that they thought they had. If you have been injured to the point where you cannot work, that can be catastrophic for a household. So when we are dealing with superannuation reporting issues they are very important. They are issues of significance that should be debated in a proper way.

Labor is always happy to talk about superannuation. We introduced compulsory superannuation. The massive superannuation sector that Australia has, this massive amount of national savings that is such a great buffer for our country, was a great nation-building reform of a previous Labor government. We are always very proud to talk about superannuation in this country for that reason. We are certainly very proud of the way that superannuation funds have grown and developed and we are proud of the fact that we are helping Australians to plan for their own retirements. We have always supported superannuation, unlike the coalition. I think it was a very well-known coalition member of parliament who described superannuation as the 'greatest con job of all time'. Of course, that was some time ago. There is at least on the surface, at least ostensibly, bipartisanship around the value of superannuation.

Having said that, we know that this year, regrettably, the superannuation guarantee increase was pushed back further by this government on two occasions. There was an argument made to the Australian people that the money would be in their pockets instead of locked away in their superannuation funds. That is actually a very silly argument, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, a lot of Australians are covered by enterprise agreements that already have pay rises locked away for the next few years and will not necessarily be in a position to have higher pay rises as a consequence. It will be difficult for them to renegotiate the pay. But, secondly, there is no obligation on the part of employers to increase pay to compensate employees for the superannuation that they thought they were going to be getting and now will not be because of the decision making of the Abbott government. It is fundamentally an attack on superannuation, and a shocking one at that, because we all know that we need to increase Australians' retirement savings. We need to continue to work on superannuation and to increase the level of the superannuation guarantee charge.

Of course, that is not the only regressive and unfortunate step that this government has taken in respect of superannuation this year. We have also seen the government moving to abolish the low-income superannuation co-contribution, which is a superannuation tax break for the millions of people who earn $37,000 per annum or less—predominantly women. The government, in its questionable wisdom, decided to take away the low-income superannuation co-contribution at the same time as forgoing some tax revenue that sensibly ought to have been collected from people with very high superannuation balances. So at the same time as they are giving tax breaks to the rich they are taking away tax breaks from people on $37,000 per annum or less.

That is unfortunately typical not just of this government's approach to superannuation, the coalition's traditional scepticism of superannuation, but also of the coalition's inverse approach to taxation policy and to social policy generally. This idea that you give tax breaks to the rich while taking away tax breaks from the very poor is unfortunately very consistent with the coalition's approach to public policy—another obvious example being the paid parental leave scheme where, the more you earn, the more taxpayer support you get. You could not imagine a more regressive policy, I think. It is funny—you mention it to people from overseas and they are just shocked that a so-called conservative government would come up with such a large cash splash from the public purse. But it is unfortunately consistent with what this government wants to do. It wants to redistribute money towards the well off and away from the less well off. It wants to contribute to inequality, not tackle it.

We know that this government has come under a great deal of fire and pressure not just from economists and community groups but from its own backbench to scrap the ridiculous $20 billion paid parental leave scheme. I hope that it is one of the so-called barnacles that will be scrapped. But, as I say, it is consistent with the way that this government has approached public policy generally.

They unfortunately have these very, very odd ideas about what an appropriate use of taxpayer money is—another example being forgoing five tax evasion loophole closure mechanisms that Labor proposed last year. They voted against the tax evasion bill that Labor proposed last year. And the list goes on when it comes to the way that this government has been approaching the issues of fairness and equality, because tax evasion and tax loopholes go to the heart of fairness and equality. If you allow people and companies to avoid paying taxation, that has a direct effect on government's ability to provide services to the community.

Turning to the other parts of the bill, schedule 2 makes mechanical and non-controversial amendments to the Taxation Administration Act to consolidate duplicated provisions, repeal redundant laws and move longstanding regulations into primary law. I note the member for Deakin was very supportive of these changes. The fact is that of course legislation should be made easier to read, of course it should be made more practical for practitioners and laypeople alike, but it is just a job. It is the everyday job of this parliament to do those things; it is not something that requires a great big fanfare. I do not think the government needs to jump up and say, 'Ta-da! We've managed to do our job!' Just get on with it guys. Schedule 3 amends the Financial Sector (Shareholdings) Act 1998 in respect of— (Time expired)

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

Before commencing my contribution to the debate on the Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014 I will address a couple of comments made by the member for Griffith about this being the ordinary work of the parliament. She reiterated that at the end, saying that this is the everyday job of government. Let us go back into the history of her predecessor, former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and have a look at how he did with the ordinary work of government.

Those opposite promised one-in one-out. What was the result? Let us have a look at their performance: 21,000 extra regulations. One-in one-out? No, 21,000 extra. How did you perform? How did you do in your ordinary work of government, I ask the member for Griffith. How many out? There were 21,000 in, so there were not many out. It is no wonder that last September the Australian people said, 'You have failed in your performance. You have not done the ordinary work of government that you are supposed to do, far from it.' We know the history. We will not go into the detail too much.

What have we done? Let us compare and contrast. In only a year we have added a huge amount of legislation which is repealing a huge amount of regulations—10,000 on our first repeal day. More recently, we have had another thousand, adding up to around $2 billion worth of regulations being removed. These are tangible outcomes that have significant results, which the member for Griffith decides is the ordinary work of government. That may be, but you have to perform in this world. You have to get results, whether they be ordinary or not.

Let us look at the public gallery after the speech of the member for Moreton. The member for Deakin in his speech reflected on the public gallery and its opinion of the speech of the member for Moreton. The member for Moreton does say some good things from time to time. I do enjoy his company. Those in the public gallery departed very quickly after his speech. As the member for Deakin said, his speech could have been far more constructive. He could have recognised that, yes, the coalition has done some good work and Labor acknowledges you for that. The member for Fraser, too, talked about substance. He did not want to mention the free trade agreements that have been signed. He mentioned fairness but he did not talk about the interest bill of over $30 million that we are forced to pay back every day on the former Labor government's debt. Speaking of fairness, the money we pay on that interest bill could go to social infrastructure, to so many things that our community needs, but, no, we are paying it on debt. That is the clincher. That is where debt does matter and how it has an impact on the community, which members opposite fail to acknowledge.

I mentioned recently in the House when speaking about another of these fine bills through which we are getting great results in eliminating compliance and red tape. A recent study is Shaping the Future of South Australia, by KPMG, Bank of South Australia, CEDA, Flinders University and the government of South Australia. One of the top 10 actions in the study was 'Reduce the burden of regulation to drive economic growth.' I congratulate the government of South Australia on this initiative. I looked through the actions to see what they proposed. Let us remember that after 12 years in power in South Australia the Labor Party have finally realised that they need to do something on so many fronts, and need to take some action on regulation and red tape. They are establishing industry and government roundtables. After 12 years they are establishing things. What have they been doing? They have been asleep at the wheel, like some others we have seen.

What have we done in one year? We have had significant outcomes: over $2 billion and 12,000 regulations removed. They are doing consultation. Congratulations! In a year we have done significant consultation, whether it be with the Logistics Council, Medicines Australia and so many other industry groups around Australia that my colleagues in the deregulation task force have reached out to and obtained input and suggestions from. When I speak to some of these national bodies, they say, 'Yes, we're talking to Josh Frydenberg. He's onto it and he's looking at ways to address our concerns about the overburdensome compliance of red tape.' I congratulate the member for Kooyong on his excellent leadership on this, which is being driven by the Prime Minister.

When those opposite talk about consultation they might like to take a leaf out of our book too. We have requested that ministers work with departments and create to regulation units within every portfolio. That is the template, South Australian Labor, go and do it. Do not just mess around for another four years.

Another of South Australia Labor's action items is the one-in one-out rule. Well done! We have heard that before haven't we? The one-in one-out rule was tried by the previous federal Labor government, and look where that got them. Do not follow the previous federal Labor government, South Australia, follow the coalition government. Jay Weatherill and the Treasurer, do something for the state, get some results, get some action and stop talking.

In closing, I will go through some points on the bill. Whether it be superannuation, the consolidation and repair of tax provisions, or rewriting the definition of Australia, they are not headline grabbers but they are important. They are significant. They add to better government. They are good policy. We are getting good outcomes and we need to be acknowledged for that.

David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It is great to follow my friend the member for Hindmarsh on his remarks on this important piece of legislation. Regulatory burdens are a terrible thing and they should be minimised wherever possible. Of course, you cannot get rid of all regulation. We do need some regulation. But there is an enormous amount of government regulation which is counterproductive. As I said in the House the other day, one of the very good examples of counterproductive government regulation is the whole system of international tariffs, which the world is in the process of dismantling. That is a particularly egregious example, but there are many, many examples of red tape and bad regulation that get in the way of people getting stuff done.

The problem is that in the six years which we have just seen pass from 2007 to 2013—the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era—the regulatory problems in this nation just got worse and worse. That was because the Labor Party do not fundamentally understand how to get rid of red tape and they do not fundamentally believe in their hearts that it is important. Part of the reason for that is that they have absolutely no experience at ever managing an organisation or trying to get something done in the private sector. That big government style of saying, 'We'll set up a committee, we'll talk about some things, we'll establish a few rules, we'll put out a press release and then we'll go and have a cup of coffee at Aussies,' is not the way to govern. We must always govern with the interests of the Australian business community at heart because they are the people who create jobs.

What is interesting is that the last government commissioned an independent review into its approach to regulation and reducing regulatory burdens. I am sorry to say that that review came back with some very, very damning results. It was not a good report card at all that the previous government got from the independent review which it commissioned—so much so that The Australian in October 2012 chronicled some of the shortcomings listed in the Borthwick Milliner review into government regulation. To quote from its article:

GOVERNMENT ministers are flouting requirements that the impact of new regulations be assessed before decisions are made …

That is not at all consistent with the notion of getting rid of regulation, because if the ministers in charge of getting rid of regulation are not considering regulation prior to passing new legislation there is a pretty fundamental problem in the process.

To quote directly from the review:

None of the ministers consulted saw that regulatory impact statements had any real relevance to their, or cabinet's decision-making …

That was from the report commissioned by the previous government into their own process in relation to regulation. The independent panel found that none of the ministers consulted saw that regulatory impact statements had any real relevance to theirs, or cabinet's, decision making. In that one sentence, any shred of credibility that the previous government would lay claim to in relation to reducing red tape is gone, because none of the ministers consulted by this independent review saw that regulatory impact statements had any impact on their decision-making processes.

There are some other interesting quotes in this very well-written review of the regulatory impact process by Borthwick and Milliner. This one is quite intriguing:

… most agencies indicated that in the majority of cases, a RIS is prepared after the relevant decision has already been made …

That is an interesting way of doing it—to make the decision, commit to a course of action and then look at the regulatory impact and the red tape burden you are creating after you have already made a decision. I might be unusual in this sense, but I always find the way to approach things is to consider the issues prior to making a decision. Once you have made a decision, if you have not considered something, then by definition it has not been in your thought process. As I say, most agencies indicated that, in the majority of cases, regulatory impact statements were prepared after the relevant decision had been made.

There is another interesting quote in the Borthwick Milliner review. I commend that review to you, Deputy Speaker. It was published back in April 2012. The authors said:

… the evidence before the Review suggested that things were often left too late with there being a last minute scramble to pull the RIS—

regulatory impact statement—

together. Often this results in ministers being uninformed or frustrated by the time taken to prepare a RIS which is seen as holding up rather than informing their decision.

This is a very difficult image. It is very sad to hear that ministers were upset and frustrated by the regulatory impact process, but the report says there was a last-minute scramble to pull the statements together and that this resulted in the minister being uninformed or frustrated. I am not sure which is worse. You would think it would clearly be good for them to be informed. They should not have been frustrated because this is a fundamentally important task that is central to discharging your duty as a minister to minimise the regulatory impact on society. But they were either uninformed or frustrated, according to this independent review.

It also says in the review:

If the … Process were operating and performing as intended, Ministers … would rely on and refer to the analysis and evidence contained within it in coming to their decisions – however, this rarely happens in the cases discussed during the Review’s consultation.

So, again, there was no actual consideration of the regulatory impact and crushing burden of red tape prior to it being implemented. This is a very, very important point because the independent review commissioned by those opposite into themselves found that they were completely disinterested in the issue of the regulatory burden they were imposing on the Australian community. It is impossible, then, for them to argue that they were, in fact, concerned with that when the independent review found the opposite. I will come to a little more about what the previous government did in this space a little bit later.

The report goes on to make a number of other observations. One of the concluding comments is a bit of a sad note. It talks about the importance of the impact statement being embraced by ministers and then it says:

If this seemingly low hurdle is an obstacle, it begs the question whether there is, in fact, a ‘real’ Government commitment to take ownership of RIA.

No government commitment.

The other point from the review:

It is clear from the consultation undertaken by the Review that none of the participants or stakeholders believe that the RIA Process (and the RIS) is delivering the benefits that the OECD suggests it should.

It is really just an absolutely damning report into the complete and blatant disregard for the crushing imposition of red tape by the previous government. Rarely is there such a black and white, clear-cut independent condemnation of government policy as we see in this sterling report.

Of course we know how bad a job Labor did in this space. We know that the OECD ranked Australia last year 124th out of 148 nations on the burden of government regulation—this is a list that you want to be at the top of, not at the bottom. Our regulatory burden was deemed to be worse than Colombia. It is really quite frightening. We just beat Iran in terms of the level of government regulation, but we could not quite top Colombia. That is a damning estimate of our position.

And of course the Productivity Commission has weighed in on this and said: 'The cost of regulation in the economy is as much as four per cent of GDP.' Getting rid of these burdens would improve GDP by as much as four per cent.

Given the extraordinary record of the previous government in this space, so eloquently confirmed by the Borthwick-Milliner review, it is remarkable that just a few weeks before the election on 24 July 2013—about six weeks before the election—the Labor Party put out a press release. 'Labor delivers real reforms to cut red tape', it grandly announced. It was such an important issue that they had to have three different people release this exciting information. There was Senator Wong, of course; the Hon. Mark Dreyfus QC MP; and someone who is no longer with us in this House, the previous member for Lindsay and Assistant Treasurer, David Bradbury. He has been rightly removed from his role by the people of Lindsay and replaced by a far more effective current member who is a very strong advocate for the people of western Sydney.

We had the independent review that basically said Labor did nothing in the regulatory impact area and did not care about it—to summarise it in a sensible fashion. That is basically what the report said. But Mark Dreyfus QC said:

Reducing red tape and removing redundant laws, particularly in the customs portfolio, improves the efficiency of businesses engaged in importing and exporting and makes things simpler for all Australians.

So why did they introduce 21,000 new regulations? Why would they put out a press release just six weeks before the election when they had done such an appalling job in this space for the preceding 34 months? It really does beggar belief that they would claim any credibility in this area whatsoever.

There are a number of changes in this bill. Frankly, when you look at the bill, you see they are good changes—very sensible changes. You wonder why they need to be made, because you wonder why the previous government would not have sorted this stuff out before. There have been sensible changes such as some technical issues around the definition of 'Australia', which obviously needs to be cleaned up, as well as a range of other matters which include, of course, those provisions around the definition of 'associates' and the reporting requirements in relation to what associates need to do when involved in a transaction—which is an important point.

Also, there is an important area in the superannuation administration removing the pay slip reporting provisions which were to be introduced and which would have significantly increased the compliance costs for small businesses; that is clearly not something that is in anyone's interests. It also removes some of the various redundant and other inoperative provisions, specifically in the area of taxation. So these are good and sensible changes. It is good that the opposition is supporting these changes; we do welcome them to the cause. We do welcome them to the cause of removing red tape so ably led by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister. That is what we are entirely focused on.

It is very easy to say red tape; it is two words. It is a whole lot harder to actually do something about it. The Borthwick-Milliner review, that very detailed and considered review from April 2012, is a horrendous indictment on the complete lack of interest in this area by the previous government. They do not have experience in actually running enterprises. They do not have experience in employing people. They do not know what it means to actually be there on the front lines of the economy, employing people, making things happen. They do not know how crushing the burden of red tape can be. That is why they did nothing in the six years they were in government. That is why the Borthwick-Milliner review in its even tone condemned the previous government and all of those opposite so comprehensively. We have to fix up that mess, and that is what we are doing through this legislation.

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

Order! It being just about 1:30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43. The debate may be resumed at a later hour.