Daniel Mulino (Fraser, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I have pleasure in rising to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill. This is a very important bill, in part because it's part of a very important process that the Australian Law Reform Commission is undertaking in relation to the Corporations Law and a number of pieces of legislation regulating financial services. For context, it's important to note that the ALRC is currently undertaking a substantial review of the legislative framework for corporations and financial services regulation. The terms of reference for this review were provided to the ALRC on 11 September 2020, and those terms of reference required the provision of a final report to the Attorney-General by 30 September 2023. Financial services legislation: interim report Bhas been handed to the Attorney-General, and Financial services legislation: interim report Awas handed down sometime before that. Together, the provisions that we see in this bill arise from those two interim reports.

Many of the elements of this bill arise from interim report A, but I also want to talk in my contribution today about interim report B. Together, they foreshadow significant work that this parliament and future parliaments will need to grapple with. It's worth stating at the outset that the terms of reference for this enquiry asked that the ALRC take account of a number of important prior reports, the first of which was the 2019 Final report of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. It's very important to note that that report was a precursor to some of the work that the ALRC is currently undertaking. Simplification of the corporations law and a number of other pieces of legislation dealing with financial services legislation has direct impacts on people interacting with the financial services sector. A number of references were made in the royal commission to the need to simplify these laws—to rationalise and improve the operation of these laws. I think it is important to make the connection with that royal commission report to highlight the fact that these reforms are very important in terms of their direct impact on everyday people.

There are a number of other pieces of analysis that this work builds upon and will make reference to, including Treasury's ASIC Enforcement review task force report of 2017; the 2015 Australian government Competition policy review:Final report;the 2014 Financial system inquiry: Final report; and the Productivity Commission's 2014 reportAccess to justice arrangements. This is a very broad-ranging set of reports and they cover a range of important legal principles and drafting principles. That will go to some of the issues I touch on in my contribution relating to the hierarchy of laws, for example, and making sure that laws are designed in a way such that they are more efficient and transparent.

But it also goes to a number of fundamental economic principles in the optimal design of regulations and laws. On a personal note, my first full-time job after leaving university was in the Attorney-General's Department here in Canberra. I was in a division of the Attorney-General's Department which included the international trade law section, which I worked in. But the bulk of the division that I worked in was related to the simplification of the Corporations Act. This is going way back to the mid-1990s. Indeed, what we have seen since that time is a significant expansion in the complexity of the corporations law.

What that shows me is that this isn't a project where there is going to be a destination where we finish this task. The task of simplifying and rationalising the corporations law and a range of pieces of legislation dealing with the financial services sector is an ongoing task. It has been a priority of governments going back decades, and many of the pieces of work that are alluded to in interim report A and interim report B it will take a number of years to fully give effect to.

The terms of reference of this ALRC project relate directly to a number of provisions in the bill which we are considering today. They come in two parts. Part A deals with the use of definitions in corporations and financial services legislation. Specifically, terms should be defined consistent with appropriate regulatory boundaries, there should be appropriate design of legislative definitions and there should be consistent use of terminology. Tidying up definitions often ends up being quite technical. The use of the term 'tidying up', which people often use in relation to bills like this, often underestimates the importance of this. Again, referring back to some of my own experience in improving the operations of legislation in the financial services sector, a piece of reform that I worked on a decade or so ago now, was to implement a standard definition of 'flood' when it came to insurance products.

That was a piece of legislation that was long overdue when it was implemented in the Gillard government, a piece of legislation that actually ended up being very pro-consumer. It was far more than tidying up; it was a piece of reform that made insurance products much more intelligible for consumers but also led to a process by which products provided much more standardised coverage. So I simply make the point that standardising and clarifying definitions is a very important piece of reform in and of itself.

The second piece of the terms of reference is in relation to the coherence of regulatory design and the hierarchy of laws. This is to clarify how to manage legislative complexity over time, how to maintain regulatory flexibility, how to react to unforeseen circumstances and how to use the delegation of powers. This is probably the piece of work that is going to require the most complex changes to pieces of legislation, and that piece of work is going to require actions by not just this parliament but subsequent parliaments. That's really the focus of interim report B.

If we go back to interim report A, which focused by and large on the use of definitions, the rationalisation or greater consistency of definitions, we see a lot of the recommendations for immediate action arising from interim report A reflected in this bill. Schedules 1 to 3 arose directly from ALRC recommendations and refer to a number of elements—for example, unfreezing the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 so that the current version applies to the Corporations Act 2001 and to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. As interim report A indicated, there was a freezing of the application of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 so that it applied as it was at 1 January 2005 to the Corporations Law. Without getting into all the merits or lack of merits as to why that freezing occurred, suffice to say that the ALRC made the point that they didn't believe that there was a strong rationale for continuing that freezing and, moreover, that it added a great deal of complexity. Even the application of that freezing, I think, highlights a number of the challenges that we face when thinking about the simplification of the Corporations Law. There were a number of areas of uncertainty. For example, did that freezing apply to delegated legislation? Did it apply to notional amendments made by ASIC? So the unfreezing makes sense in and of itself, but it also alludes to a number of the complexities that have grown in the system. There are a number of other technical amendments which are incorporated in schedules 1 to 3, all of which arise from recommendations from the ALRC in that interim report A.

Schedule 4 makes a number of amendments to the Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1991, the Life Insurance Act 1995 and the Insurance Act 1973. These acts are enabling acts for certain legislative instruments regulating the insurance industry, some of which are due to sunset. Sunsetting is very important in relation to a number of legislative instruments and is widely used when it comes to delegated legislation. The purpose of this bill, and schedule 4 in particular, is to make sure that sunsetting insurance instruments that are still necessary remain up to date when they are remade, that they can be updated.

But, again, this schedule highlights some of the challenges that we are going to face when we think about more systemic change in this area. The ALRC alluded to the challenge of the number of provisions that have crept into delegated legislation, and they made suggestions that, where possible, certain elements should sunset. This raises a number of questions as to the complexity, on occasions, of ensuring that those sunsetting arrangements are managed appropriately.

Schedule 5 deals with the rationalisation of ending ASIC instruments, and schedule 6 contains a number of additional minor and technical amendments.

All of these are sensible and important changes, but I also want to make reference to some of the broader work in the final couple of minutes that I have. We are talking here about a bill that forms part of a very important piece of longer-term reform. The Corporations Act has, as I understand it, increased from 400,000 words to 800,000 words in the last 20 years or so. But it's not just that: there are certain parts of corporations law—such as chapter 7, dealing with financial services and products—which have grown in complexity. On top of that, we don't just have the length of the act itself but also a creeping growth in guidance instruments and a number of individual relief instruments in a number of documents that one might consider to be soft law. Indeed, we have had significant growth in the number of notional amendments made by ASIC, which is possible under the act. All of this has created a great deal of complexity and cost. The ALRC talks about compliance costs for regulated entities, administrative costs for government agencies, all of the advice costs   —but I would add there are also costs associated with uncertainty. It's that much harder, I think, under current arrangements to even understand what the law is that applies in certain circumstances. In the case of the regulation of a number of financial services and products, that's particularly the case. There are a number of individual relief instruments or guidance documents, and a number of notional amendments, that add a great deal of complexity.

I might make reference to the Productivity Commission, which in one of its earlier reports said that good legislative design or good regulation should serve clearly identify policy goals and be effective in reaching those goals, that it should promote innovation through goals-based approaches, and that it should be clear and simple. That is an important set of underlying principles—often harder to implement in practice than theory, but an important set of guiding principles.

The hierarchy of laws section of interim report B is worth noting—not to suggest that I am supporting any particular element of it, but it's worth noting that in a sense this leads to the next stage, post this bill, of some of the reforms this parliament is going to need to consider. Page 58 looks at the current arrangements where, for example, there are 19 regulations and 50 legislative instruments underlying chapter 6D of the Corporations Act, as well as 120 notional amendments. Part 7.9 of the Corporations Act has 228 regulations and 80 legislative instruments, as well as 600 notional amendments. What they are proposing is that there be a common, core set of regimes in an overarching act, that there be a scoping order and that disclosure rules underlie that. I make reference to that hierarchy of laws because, following the passage this bill and the important work that does in relation to a number of recommendations arising from interim report A, there's a significant amount of important policy work that this parliament will grapple with moving forward as part of this broader project.

Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Government Services and the Digital Economy) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No.1) Bill is a six-schedule Treasury omnibus bill. The coalition will be supporting this bill. The compliance burden and the complexity of the Corporations Act and the financial services legal and regulatory framework are consistent issues raised by stakeholders. Red tape is a growing challenge for business. Of course, support for the passage of this bill is no substitute for a government that is refusing to take responsibility for high inflation, rising mortgage payments, rising prices at the checkout and rising energy bills, just to name a few of the challenges facing Australians every day. Those challenges, sadly, are not addressed in this bill. We have a government that does not have the plan or the priorities to fix the economic problems facing Australians.

I turn to discuss the schedules to this bill. Schedules 1, 2 and 3 to the bill make amendments to implement recommendations made by the Australian Law Reform Commission in interim reports A and B of its review of the legislative frameworks for corporations and financial services regulation. The measures in these schedules are designed to make a number of technical amendments and corrections to simplify the law and improve its navigability, as recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission. The changes seek to create a single glossary of defined terms in the Corporations Act; to repeal redundant provisions and correct errors; to improve clarity; and to unfreeze the Acts Interpretation Act so the current version applies to the Corporations Act and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act.

Schedule 4 to the bill makes amendments to the Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1991, the Life Insurance Act 1995 and the Insurance Act 1973. These acts are the enabling acts of certain legislative instruments regulating the insurance industry that are due to sunset on 1 October this year. Schedule 4 will update certain provisions in order to reflect more modern practices.

Schedule 5 to the bill transfers longstanding and accepted matters currently contained in three legislative instruments made by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission to the Corporations Act and to the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009. Schedule 6 to the bill amends various laws in the Treasury portfolio with a view to achieving the outcome that these laws operate in accordance with policy intent. It also makes minor changes to improve administrative outcomes and to remedy unintended consequences, as well as correcting technical and drafting defects.

The coalition supports measures which reduce red tape for business. Independent research has estimated that the annual cost to the economy of red tape is $176 billion a year. The costs of red tape to the economy are more than simply direct costs. They also include businesses which are never started, jobs which are never created and ambitions that are never fulfilled due to bureaucratic interference. This project is no small task. Treasury portfolio laws encompass over 50 acts containing thousands of provisions spanning corporations law, taxation, competition and consumer policy, and financial sector regulation. This bill needs to be the beginning, not the end, of reducing red tape and supporting deregulation.

This bill, as I've indicated, has many measures we on this side of the House can support. However, I have to note with regret that the government's actions in bringing this bill, which we support, do not in any way make up for the sad record of broken promises on franking credits, on superannuation taxes and on taxing unrealised capital gains, amongst other things. The sad reality is that many small businesses will be captured by the changes to superannuation made by this Labor government and by the changes to the law as regards unrealised capital gains which are a feature of those changes announced by this Labor government. The sad reality, also, is that many charities will lose out as a consequence of the changes Labor is proposing to make in relation to the application of the law concerning franking credits—again, changes which amount to a broken promise. The simple fact is that with these broken promises on superannuation taxes, at a time when cost-of-living pressures are soaring, Australians will be left worse off.

Of course, the fact that this government has chosen to break its oft-repeated promises in relation to superannuation is to be deplored from first principles, but this action is also to be deplored because it undermines confidence in Australia's superannuation system.

The money sitting in superannuation funds are not some piggy bank that governments can draw upon for tax-and-spend purposes. It represents the hard-earned money of Australians. Promises were made on several occasions before last year's election by the now Prime Minister and by the now Treasurer that there would be no changes to superannuation. What, in fact, this government has chosen to do, upon coming to power, is to announce changes that are entirely inconsistent with those commitments that were given before the election. This government has announced that a set of changes which will have the effect of doubling superannuation taxes faced by one in 10 Australians by the time they retire. It has announced changes which will have the effect of stopping companies in a range of circumstances from offering franking credits to Australian investors to super funds and to charities. It has announced changes that will have the effect of taxing unrealised capital gains in superannuation funds, a very significant change to an extremely long-standing principle in Australian tax legislation and policy, with the consequence that many Australian retirees will be required under these changes that Labor has announced to pay tax on money that they have not yet even earned.

Labor was dishonest in its approach in relation to superannuation. It was dishonest in its claim there would be no change to superannuation. And they have also been dishonest about the magnitude and impact of these changes and how many Australians will be affected. The government has claimed that fewer than 80,000 Australians will be affected. Independent research shows that that number is wildly wrong. By the time they retire, more than 500,000 Australians, in fact, are going to be hit by this new tax on superannuation. The government cannot explain how these changes will work, can't explain how many people will be affected. The Prime Minister has said it will impact one in 200 people. The finance minister has said it will impact one in 10. If the government can't explain it, how can Australians understand it? Australians would be right to draw the conclusion from the actions the government has taken on this front that they are looking enthusiastically for other areas where they can impose new taxes.

I say, on behalf of the coalition, that the deregulatory changes in this bill, so far as they go, are changes that the coalition will support. But they are changes being made in a broader context of a set of economic policies being carried out by this government which are generating higher inflation, rising mortgage payments, rising prices at the checkout, rising energy bills and a range of new taxes, even in the face of promises made before coming to government that there would be no such new taxes.

Alicia Payne (Canberra, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to take this opportunity to also rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No.1) Bill 2023. As part of its regulatory stewardship role, the government is progressing amendments to ensure that Treasury portfolio legislation remains current and fit for purpose. The amendments in this bill are mostly technical but they will reduce the complexity in Australia's corporations and financial services law, increase its navigability and enhance its clarity, and they supplement the law improvement amendments in the Treasury Laws Amendment (Modernising Business Communications) Bill.

I want to acknowledge the ongoing work, which often doesn't receive much attention, of the Assistant Treasurer and the Department of the Treasury. It is an ongoing package of work to ensure that these laws are fit for purpose, and to reduce complexity. These amendments relate to an enormous number of laws, so it is an ongoing piece of work, as I say, one that doesn't always receive a lot of attention. A lot of work goes into it, and it really does make a difference.

The reforms in this bill implement recommendations made by the Australian Law Reform Commission in its interim reports for the Review of the Legislative Framework for Corporations and Financial Services Regulation to simplify and rationalise Australia's corporations and financial services law. The ALRC's recommendations in its interim reports are designed for immediate implementation prior to the release of its final report on 30 November this year. The recommendations address technical issues and have widespread support. This follows an extensive consultation process on these amendments.

I will now to talk to the detail of the changes in this bill. Schedules 1 to 3 of the bill enact recommendations made by the Australian Law Reform Commission in interim report A and interim report B of its Review of the Legislative Framework for Corporations and Financial Services Regulation. The purpose of the review is to inquire into the potential simplification and rationalisation of Australia's financial services law. Schedules 1 to 3 of the bill improve the navigability of and simplify the law by unfreezing the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 so that the current version applies to the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. They create a single glossary of all defined terms in section 9 of the Corporation Act. They repeal redundant provisions, including definitions that are no longer used and cross-references to repeal provisions, they correct errors and they improve clarity, with a particular focus on terms defined as having more than one meaning and definitions containing substantive obligations. You can see there the changes that these schedules are making, which will make this more usable for people and make these laws easier to understand and less unnecessarily complex.

Schedule 4 of this bill relates to insurance and makes amendments to the Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1991, the Life Insurance Act 1995 and Insurance Act 1973. These acts are enabling acts of certain legislative instruments regulating the insurance industry that are due to sunset on 1 October this year. Sunsetting is the automatic repeal of legislative instruments after a certain date unless action is taken to retain them. It is important to ensure that legislative instruments are kept up to date and only remain in force for as long as they are needed. The purpose of the relevant insurance acts is to protect policyholders by regulating the types of persons that may carry on insurance businesses and to prescribe standards to ensure the prudent management of the insurance industry. The amendments will help to ensure that the sunsetting insurance instruments that are still necessary are up to date and fit for purpose when they are remade. The amendments in schedule 4 of the bill are primarily technical and include updating certain provisions to reflect modern communication practices, allowing regulators to administratively prescribe the manner and form of certain notices to increase flexibility and align with modern drafting practices, and moving some provisions in the insurance instruments into the primary legislation.

Schedule 5 of the bill relates to the rationalisation of ending ASIC instruments. Schedule 5 of the bill amends the Corporations Act and the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 to incorporate longstanding matters currently contained in Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC, legislation. Long-term reliance on ASIC's exemption and modification powers to update the law for changing circumstances makes it difficult for regulated entities to understand the full state of the law as it applies to them. The amendments in schedule 5 of the bill improve the clarity of the law, provide certainty and make it simpler for regulated entities and consumers to understand their rights and obligations.

Schedule 6 of the bill brings together the minor and technical amendments that are required. These minor and technical amendments amend various laws in the Treasury portfolio to ensure those laws operate in accordance with the policy intent, make minor changes to improve administrative outcomes and remedy unintended consequences, as well as to correct technical and drafting defects.

The amendments have been identified by a number of Treasury portfolio agencies, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and policy divisions within Treasury, including as a result of the consultation with affected users of the laws.

It is such an important process that Treasury does in consulting with the people that use these laws and using that information to improve them in bills such as this. The amendments made by schedule 6 to the bill reflect the government's commitment to the ongoing care and maintenance of Treasury laws to rectify minor problems with the law that prevent it from operating as intended, making it easier for Australians to comply with these laws.

The minor and technical amendments process was first supported by a recommendation of the 2008 Tax Design Review Panel, which was appointed to examine how to reduce delays in the enactment of tax legislation and improve the quality of tax law changes. It has since been expanded to all Treasury portfolio legislation. As you can see, the changes that are included in this bill are not necessarily that exciting and they don't necessarily get that much attention often, but it is a really important ongoing process. Having worked at Treasury, I know firsthand the complicated and difficult work, and the important consultation work, that goes into this ongoing process of amendments to ensure these laws are fit for purpose and fit with modern life in Australia so that people who use these laws find it as easy as possible to comply with them, which is, of course, very important to ensure that the laws serve their intent. So it really is an important part of the work of the Treasury and the Assistant Treasurer, and I just want to acknowledge that ongoing work.

I've just followed a speech from the member from Bradfield, who took the opportunity to talk about our superannuation changes for those with accounts over $3 million. Given that he has talked about that in the debate on this bill, I thought I would respond. Our government has been completely upfront about the challenges that are facing our economy and the budget. We are making this modest adjustment to superannuation tax breaks for earnings on balances above $3 million, a change that will not come into effect until after the next election. Ninety-nine point five per cent of Australians with super accounts will still receive the same generous tax breaks that they do, and that 0.5 per cent of people who have balances over $3 million who will be affected by this change will still receive tax breaks, but they will be slightly less generous. That is how our policy works.

But we have seen, unfortunately, the scaremongering from the opposition that we have become so used to. The member for Bradfield talked a lot about dishonesty. I think really they need to look at the way they are talking about this policy to the public. In fact, just this week there was a motion put forward by a member of the opposition claiming that this would impact young people. I think that is quite misleading about the intent of this policy, because basically a young person earning $90,000 a year today, and projecting an increasing salary throughout their life, will almost never accumulate $3 million in their super accounts. In fact, Treasury projects that, in 2052, only the top 10 per cent of earners retiring that year will have more than $3 million in their super accounts. So it's pretty clear that the coalition are not talking to young people in their electorates. This is a change affecting people with the highest superannuation balances, 0.5 per cent of Australians. They will still receive generous tax breaks on that superannuation, but they will be slightly less generous as we deal with the debt that we have inherited from a decade of coalition government.

Let's not forget what we're talking about here. We're talking about the superannuation system that Labor built, which is the envy of the world. The only reason that young people could even dream of a $3 million super balance in their retirement is Labor's superannuation policy and our commitment to always protect that superannuation policy. It is Australians' own money, for their retirement. We will always defend that. Those on the opposite side will always attack the superannuation system, because they don't believe in it. We saw this during COVID, when the first place they looked for money for younger people was superannuation balances. We know, and young people know, that most young people don't have a lot of money in their superannuation; they are just beginning that journey of building it. Taking out money that is in there today robs their future self of money that would grow over their entire working life to help support them in their retirement. This is such an important principle. People who were forced, in a sense, to access that money during COVID will now not benefit from that in their retirement. If the Liberals and Nationals were particularly concerned about young people during the pandemic, perhaps they should have provided more support at the time to casual employees, through the JobKeeper scheme, and to students, who were largely left out of their assistance packages.

We are proposing a modest change to tax that, as I say, will not come into effect until after the next election. We cannot be more upfront about that. It is a very modest change, for those with the absolutely highest wealth in this country, people with balances of over $3 million. I suggest to the member for Bradfield that he should not be scaremongering about this policy that only affects a tiny minority of people, in a modest way. Perhaps he should focus on the coalition's plans for the future and come up with some ideas for the Australian people rather than just opposing everything and, worse still, scaremongering about the impacts of policies on people in our community.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Much as I like the member for Canberra, it is always interesting to hear members from the other side commenting on superannuation and those matters, because they fail to mention—and the member for Canberra just failed to mention—recent reports that their beloved industry superannuation funds, rather than complying with the law and taking five days to process rollovers, are taking up to 30 days and therefore are withholding members' money. They are withholding on members' requests to transfer their funds in a timely manner via rollovers, to maybe a self-managed super fund or to another superannuation fund. So, before those opposite lecture us about behaviour on super, maybe they should have a look at some of the things that are actually going on in the superannuation industry through their beloved industry funds at this point in time.

The Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023, which is supported by the coalition, is a worthwhile piece of legislation because it seeks to reduce the compliance burden and the complexity of the Corporations Act and the financial services framework, and it's consistent with many issues that have been raised by stakeholders. As we know, red tape is an ever-growing challenge for business—not just red tape at a federal level but growing levels of red tape at the state and local government levels as well.

Schedules 1, 2 and 3 of this bill make amendments to implement the recommendations made by the Australian Law Reform Commission in interim reports A and B of its Review of the Legislative Framework for Corporations and Financial Services Regulation. These measures are designed to make a number of practical technical amendments and corrections to simplify the law and improve its navigability, as recommended by the ALRC.

The changes seek to create a single glossary of defined terms in the Corporations Act, repeal redundant provisions, correct errors and improve clarity. This will also unfreeze the Acts Interpretation Act so that the current version applies to the Corporations Act and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act.

Schedule 4 of the bill makes amendments to the Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1991, Life Insurance Act 1995 and the Insurance Act 1973. These acts are the enabling acts of certain legislative instruments regulating the insurance industry that were due to sunset on 1 October this year. This schedule will also update certain provisions in order to reflect more moral practices.

Schedule 5 of the bill transfers longstanding and accepted matters currently contained in three Australian Securities and Investments Commission made legislative instruments to the Corporations Act and the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009.

Schedule 6 of the bill amends the various laws in the Treasury portfolio to ensure these laws operate in accordance with the policy intent, makes minor changes to improve administrative outcomes, remedies unintended consequences and corrects technical and drafting defects.

As I said before, red tape is an enormous burden on our economy, and independent research has estimated that the annual cost of red tape to the economy is some $176 billion. These red tape costs run right through the economy and are more than just a direct cost; they include that businesses never start, jobs are never created and the ambitions to grow our economy or even grow a business are never realised or undertaken, because it is just too difficult. We have been having a long debate about housing, housing affordability and housing availability. From the builders and developers that I talk to, one of the biggest impediments to achieving that is red tape. It is an enormous cost right through the economy, and any business will tell you that the cost and burden of compliance, along with staff issues or shortages, is their No. 1 issue.

APRA also pointed out in its issues paper for modernising prudential regulations that there are currently 140 prudential standards and prudential practice guides, in total covering some five APRA related industries. The Basel framework, which is a key underpinning to the strength and quality of our banks, has expanded from around 300 pages before the global financial crisis to more than 1,600 pages today. The Corporations Act has almost doubled in size since 2001 and contains over 14,500 internal cross-references. These are just some examples of why red tape reduction is so important. But there is so much more to do, and this is where the government falls short.

Businesses across this country need a government that listens to them, not one that tells them that government is at the centre of the economy. Government should never be at the centre of the economy. It is business that is at the centre of our economy because that is where our wealth and our jobs are created. The more we can get governments out of businesses' way and let them do what they do so well, which is innovate, create new job opportunities, create new products, service our markets not just in Australia but increasingly—and I'm not talking about our large businesses at the top end of town; I'm talking about small to medium businesses in electorates right across this country, including mine, who are developing an export focus. But they need assistance with that, and one of the things that we can greatly assist them with is a government that gets out of the way and lets them do that job.

But, as we have seen frequently from this government, this government's policies, public statements and even essays demonstrate that it isn't listening and has taken the wrong priorities.

After promising to work with businesses, this government has unleashed a wave of new regulation and has the basic instinct and reflex to stifle business and opportunity. At a time of rising interest rates and high inflation, we need to support economic growth over the medium term, and the government's priorities do the exact opposite of that. Whilst the bill we're debating today goes some way towards cleaning up some bits and pieces, it doesn't deal with the bigger issues that are facing the economy and doesn't deal with the issues that are facing everyday Australians. We need a government that works and focuses on supporting the aspiration of individual Australians and businesses to drive innovation, create jobs and deliver prosperity. Unfortunately, this bill, as with many others presented to the chamber by this government, fails to do this.

As I said at the outset, the opposition supports this bill, but it does so while noting that the government has failed to provide the necessary support to businesses and individual Australians to deal with the issues of high inflation, rising mortgage payments, rising rent payments, rising business loan costs and rising input costs in terms of electricity and supply chain issues. All of this feeds through. The challenges faced by Australians are not addressed in this bill, and we would ask the government to bring to this House legislation that starts to deal with some of those issues.

Tania Lawrence (Hasluck, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Australian Law Reform Commission is a creature of statute, established on 1 January 1975 by an act of parliament, having originally been introduced to the parliament by Attorney-General Lionel Murphy in 1973. Murphy said the ALRC would help ensure:

… the system of law under which people live is responsive to the social needs of our time. The rules which govern the relationship of persons with each other and with the Government should reflect current values and philosophies.

The ALRC has published well over 100 reports since its establishment, and many of these are of great public interest. Subjects of recent reports include judicial impartiality, antidiscrimination legislation, corporate criminal responsibility, family law, and incarceration rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

The current bill contains provisions that arise from the ALRC's interim reports on the financial services legislation. Financial services legislation: interim report A focuses on better aligning definitions across the law with those in the Corporations Law. Financial services legislation: interim report B seeks to redress deficiencies in the organisation of the law. Compared to many other reports of the commission, this work may seem a little dull; regardless, it is necessary. Laws do not work if they are confused, and laws are not easily accessed if they are muddled.

Staff of the commission did not hold back when describing the state of the financial services law in this process. Interim report A starts by using the metaphor of Russian dolls to describe the plethora of definitions currently applying. In relation to interim report B, Dr William Isdale and Christopher Ash described the problem in these terms:

If Australia's corporations and financial services statutes were likened to a house, it would be a large and disordered one. A house in which new annexes have been added with little thought to overall design, and in which objects are scattered and hidden, with little regard to how they may be found in the future. In short, a house that is thoroughly disordered. A house that needs re-design and serious tidying.

Further, they said:

… the law today does not reflect any single design philosophy. It is disorganised, unwieldy, incoherent, and difficult to navigate (let alone comprehend).

They suggested:

… we might embrace a bit more minimalism, relocate some of our clutter, and throw out the broken toys and scattered pizza boxes.

In legislation, as in life, simplicity is a virtue. The need for this bill and others like it is occasioned by years and years of mere adding on without regard for overall structure, meaning and philosophy. The ALRC plan for the financial services law would include the act itself—although leaner—with a scoping order to contain most of the exclusions and exemptions and further thematically arranged rules.

The bill provides that the Acts Interpretation Act will apply to the Corporations Law and the ASIC Act, as it does generally to other acts. This change will remove uncertainty and make it easier for both lawyers and others to deal with, explain and apply the law. It provides for a single consolidated glossary which, surprisingly, does not yet exist in the Corporations Law. This will improve the navigability of the law. There is a wholesale reduction in the number and type of terms that need definition, as well as style changes to make the law more readable. Greater consistency between the Corporations Law and the ASIC Act is provided for.

Each of these changes taken singly might be considered trivial. Taken as a whole, they constitute a real and effective simplification with the potential to save time, trouble and confusion for thousands of Australian individuals and businesses on a daily basis. Time is money. When we succeed in improving our legislative environment, we create value and improve productivity. This detailed legislative grunt work, which is the realm of specialised lawyers and drafters, contributes to improvements for the rest of society across the board. There'll be very little public thanks for the brilliant and fastidious pen-pushers at the ALRC, but I salute you.

The bill before the House also contains amendments to the Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1991, the Life Insurance Act 1995 and the Insurance Act 1973. These acts enable some instruments due to sunset later this year.

I'm a member of the House economics committee, and I have an ongoing interest in the insurance industry. We recently had the opportunity to hear from APRA both in relation to their annual report and for the purposes of the committee's current inquiry into economic dynamism, competition and business formation. Regulation of the insurance industry is important, and I have particular concerns about the behaviours of some insurers over recent years, the difficulties that some people are now having in obtaining reasonably priced insurance and the tendency of insurers to ignore efforts made by their clients to reduce risk.

I note that recently a significant number of life insurance companies have created a new peak body, the Council of Australian Life Insurers. About 20 life insurance and reinsurance firms established CALI in 2022, departing from the previous representation by the Financial Services Council, so the industry cannot so easily be said to speak with one voice. The government must ensure at all times the way in which it interacts with the insurance industry is predictable and consistent, and the law needs to reflect that.

The bill further moves some ASIC made regulations into the Corporations Act, making the law clearer to those who need to deal with it, and otherwise makes many minor and technical amendments. This is spring cleaning. It is necessary to do this on a regular basis. It is work that only specialists, like those working at the ALRC, and the parliamentary drafters can do, and we need to thank them, fund them and encourage them to do this work. I would like to see more simplification and consistency in the laws we make, and I commend those responsible for this bill at each of its stages of construction.

James Stevens (Sturt, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I, too, rise to speak on the second reading of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023. Like other speakers, I thank the ALRC for their work on this. I don't know that I agree with all the work they've been doing recently on some topics, but I agree with other speakers that this is an area of reform that does need a lot of attention to detail and persistence, and can be quite, if not extremely, dry at times. We appreciate the fact that a lot of hard work goes into bringing reform like this to the chamber. I thank them for their work on this and commend the other contributions in that regard.

I touch on what the lead speaker for the coalition pointed out, which is, firstly, that we support anything that is about deregulation and simplification for the business community. This body of work emanates from, initially, the Hayne royal commission and opportunities to look for red tape reduction and reforms that simplify without diminishing appropriate frameworks and protections that are in place, to ensure we have, in financial services in particular but more broadly, a framework that allows businesses to thrive but also ensures the appropriate rules and regulations are in place, to make sure we've got a corporate governance framework in this country that we can be proud of.

These bills also give us an opportunity to consider, with the rapid pace of technology and the ways in which doing business can change, ways in which statutes and legal frameworks need to take the opportunity to keep up to speed with that. During COVID, we made some fairly rapid changes to some of the older requirements in legislation, particularly about things like having physical meetings and documentation signing et cetera, for which we had and appreciated the support of the then opposition. Like a lot of things that we did in the urgency of COVID—telehealth being another great example—we were able to rapidly look at changes that ordinarily might have taken an excruciatingly long period of time. People were in a great mood to be open minded about ways to be innovative because of the challenges, particularly around social distancing, that were put in place.

I note that the Assistant Treasurer made the comment in his second reading speech on this bill that the amendments in schedule 4 'update certain provisions to reflect modern communication practices'. I really endorse reforms in this area, probably reforms more broad than what is happening in this bill, but I also reflect on the responsibility that needs to fall back on the companies that are given greater flexibility here. We have seen a lot of data breaches recently, one just in the last week or so which related to a vendor—as they sometimes call companies that provide these services, particularly in the United States—that was a supplier to a range of businesses and some prominent accounting firms in particular around electronic signing of documents. There has been a hack that, it seems, has seen the release of people's personal information through that third-party technology. We want to embrace and provide legislative flexibility for modern technology to be used in an ever greater way throughout all the requirements we have in society, particularly in business, where there are enormous red tape reduction opportunities and productivity gains to be seen around that. But there has got to be an emphasis put back, on the provision of those flexibilities, to make sure that there's a robust framework around things like the protection of data and these ongoing security breaches and hacking of people's information.

It's particularly concerning when it's things like somebody's private health records, financial information, credit card details, messages that might be sent on certain phone apps and all the rest of it. It seems that there are an ongoing and increasing number of reports and examples of the theft of consumer data. There are opportunities in the Corporations Act and with some of the work that the ALRC will be doing to put in place more stringent rules and regulations and requirements on businesses that hold personal information. One of the things that I think has become quite evident is the extent of information that is being kept on people but that it doesn't seem necessary whatsoever to keep—for example, records of former customers. We've had former customers of a particular business told, 'You used to be with us 10 years ago or 12 years ago, and we've just had a data hack, and all your information has been taken.' Why is it necessarily the case that that information is being kept, particularly kept in such a vulnerable state that it's being hacked and stolen by criminal entities? So we embrace those opportunities that the Assistant Treasurer mentioned but also look to make sure that we're putting those important obligations in place as we look for ways to modernise and provide productivity gains from that.

As the member for Bradfield mentioned and the member for Canberra responded to, we have also touched on the government's proposed superannuation changes, which are absolutely relevant to this debate and to discussion around the changes to corporations, particularly proposals of the new doubling of taxation of earnings on super balances over $3 million and, of course, the taxation on unrealised capital gains.

This is a very frightening and dramatic change to the fundamental principles that all corporations in this country operate under. It is very questionable, with what the Accounting Standards Board has to say about this principle and whether or not the government are looking to expand this principle beyond this thin end of a wedge that happens to be superannuation.

But, of course, the people of Australia should not be surprised. We knew that the government was going to come after super and dramatically change the tax treatments to superannuation. They were honest about it in the 2019 election but lost that election, so then they didn't tell anyone about it in the 2022 election so they wouldn't lose another election. Then, after winning the election, they suddenly, dramatically, had these great ideas around changing the superannuation taxation treatment that apparently didn't need to be told to the people of Australia before they went to the polls. There are a number of principles that are outrageous in that, both the misleading of voters and these retrospective changes to the provisions people have made for their retirement. A lot of people have contacted me. They had believed that they could count on the government not changing the taxation treatment of their superannuation. They had made decisions in the last couple of decades as to how they would structure their finances based on tax treatment. They did not expect the treatment to be changed in such a dramatic way.

The member for Canberra, in this debate, on the one hand said that this was only going to affect 0.5 per cent of those with superannuation and then conceded that Treasury modelling shows that one in 10 young people today will be affected by this. That's based on Treasury modelling. I wonder what the assumptions around inflation are in that Treasury modelling. A lot of modelling around inflation recently has been quite inaccurate, as far as the suggestion that the inflationary environment was going to be transitory. Regrettably, quite the opposite is occurring, and it's setting in quite deeply. One wonders, as this is remodelled—with 10 per cent of young people today eventually to be paying this higher rate of tax—what will happen if the future deterioration of the value of the dollar is greater than Treasury assumed in their modelling. We will wait to see.

As other coalition speakers have mentioned, we will support this bill. We would like to see a lot more reform in this area, and there are a lot more things this parliament could be taking action on than the important but limited elements of this bill. This week, we have a lot of government speakers on these couple of bills. It's almost 4.30 tomorrow afternoon. The government is almost there. We could be doing a lot of things with our time in the parliament to address some of the significant challenges that people have around the cost of living, rising mortgages, rising power prices, rising rents, deteriorating real wages. We see bills like this as important, but equally we can progress them through the parliament and perhaps use the parliament's time also to address some of those more significant issues. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House.

Joanne Ryan (Lalor, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise today to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023. This bill is about simplifying and rationalising the Corporations Law. The government is progressing amendments to ensure Treasury portfolio legislation remains current and fit for purpose. This bill has six schedules and will reduce complexity in Australia's corporations and financial services law, increase its navigability and enhance its clarity.

Schedules 1 to 3 of the bill enact recommendations made by the Australian Law Reform Commission in interim report A and interim report B of its Review of the Legislative Framework for Corporations and Financial Services Regulation.

The purpose of the ALRC's review is to inquire into the potential simplification and rationalisation of Australia's financial services laws. Those first three schedules of the bill improve navigability and simplify the law by unfreezing the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. The current version applies to the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investment Commission Act 2001. They create a single glossary of all defined terms in section 9 of the Corporations Act, which goes to simplify peoples understanding of the legislation. It repeals redundant provisions, including definitions that are no longer used and cross-references to appeal other provisions. It corrects errors and it improves clarity, with a particular focus on terms defined as having more than one meaning and definitions containing substantive obligations.

While talking about schedules 1 to 3, I am reminded of the contribution from the member for Forde, my opposing number as the Chief Opposition Whip, who spoke at length about red tape. As I was listening to him, I was astounded. Having been in the parliament for nine years and having been here for various debates on Treasury law amendment legislation, I would have thought the former government would have finished getting rid of all the red tape after nine years, but apparently red tape is still a major problem. This government is getting on with the job of listening to our public servants, taking seriously the reports that are landing in front of our ministers and ensuring that we are doing everything possible to have our laws, particularly around corporations, set up both for people's understanding and to make them usable.

Schedule 4 of this bill is around insurance. It makes amendments to the Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1991, the Life Insurance Act 1995 and the Insurance Act 1973. They are the enabling acts of certain legislative instruments regulating the insurance industry and they are due to sunset on 1 October 2023. For those listening from my electorate, 'sunsetting' in legislation is a way to automatically repeal legislative instruments after a certain date unless action is taken to retain them. I like to think of a sunset clause as setting an alarm on your phone to remind you to get something done. Sunset clauses are a reminder to this place and to the organisations that we need to look at this again. They are deliberately introduced into legislation to be that alarm bell, and in this case, in schedule 4, that sunset clause is coming into review on 1 October 2023, so it's a reminder for us to look at that.

It's the automatic repeal of legislative instruments after a certain date unless action is taken to retain them. Sunsetting is important to ensure legislative instruments are kept up to date and only remain in force so long as they are needed. And this, as the member for Fraser discussed earlier, is an important thing so that the framework does not become overwhelmingly large. This ensures that things that are redundant are removed.

The purpose of the relevant insurance acts is to protect policyholders by regulating the types of persons that may carry on insurance businesses and prescribe standards to ensure the prudent management of the industry. No-one in this place needs a reminder of how important that is, and no-one around the country needs a reminder of how important that is after the last few years. We've had so many incidents where we've had natural disasters and then, in this House, had prime ministers and members calling on insurance companies to do the right thing. So having absolute clarity in this space about the kinds of people who are allowed to be insurers is absolutely critical. The amendments will help to ensure the sunsetting insurance instruments that are still necessary are up to date and fit for purpose when they are remade.

The amendments in schedule 4 to the bill are primarily technical and include updating certain provisions to reflect modern communication practices. We heard the member for Sturt talking about modern communication practices, cybersecurity breaches and the importance of people's privacy and ensuring that—when we are going for these productivities and efficiencies in our legislation to allow them into practice—we are also, on the other hand, ensuring that we have a clear eye on safety and the risks. Obviously, after some of the large hacks, we are all fundamentally aware of what this is going to. But I would say to the member for Sturt that this government sees cybersecurity as a whole-of-government concern. Hence, we have a minister who has cybersecurity named in their title, because we take that seriously in this place. I would like to assure him that those things are being taken into consideration by this government. The other thing that this does is allow regulators to administratively prescribe the manner and form of certain notices to increase flexibility and align with modern drafting practices. It moves provisions from the insurance instruments into the primary legislation.

Schedule 5 is about rationalisation and ending ASIC instruments. It amends the Corporations Act and the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 to incorporate long-standing matters currently contained in Australian securities and investments commission legislation. Long-term reliance on ASIC's exemptions and modification powers to update the law for changing circumstances makes it difficult for regulated entities to understand the full state of the law as it applies to them. The amendment in schedule 5 to the bill improves the clarity of the law. It provides certainty and makes it simpler for regulated entities and consumers to understand their rights and obligations.

Schedule 6 of the bill goes to minor and technical amendments. The minor and technical elements in schedule 6 amend various laws of the Treasury portfolio to: ensure those laws operate in accordance with policy intent; make minor changes to improve administrative outcomes and remedy unintended consequences; and correct technical and drafting defects. The amendments have been identified by a number of Treasury portfolio agencies, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel and policy divisions within Treasury, including as a result of consultation with affected users of the law—most importantly. The amendments made to schedule 6 of the bill reflect the government's commitment to the ongoing care and maintenance of Treasury laws to rectify minor problems with the law that prevent it from operating as intended, making it easier for Australians to comply with current laws. The minor and technical amendments processes were first supported by the recommendation of the 2008 Tax Design Review Panel, which was appointed to reduce delays in the enactment of tax legislation and improve the quality of tax law changes. This has since been expanded to all Treasury portfolio legislation.

The bill demonstrates the government progressing amendments to ensure that Treasury portfolio legislation remains current and fit for purpose. It will take years to give effect to some of these measures. I would like to commend the work of the member for Whitlam, the Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Financial Services, for his work in this space. I would also like to note some of the other contributions we've had. We heard this morning from the Manager of Opposition Business. His contribution suggested that the government did not have an economic plan. I refer the member for Bradfield to the May budget, where he will see an economic plan. The budget delivered in May was carefully calibrated with an eye to fiscal restraint and economic repair. The member for Bradfield might note that it also has projections to deliver a budget surplus.

The other area of concern for me this morning in the debate that we've heard is around superannuation, which the member for Sturt and the member for Bradfield talked about.

I would note to the young people listening to those contributions, echoing the member for Canberra's statements around the changes to superannuation, that we are talking about changes to the accounts of people with more than $3 million in their superannuation account, with the change in taxation treatment. The member for Sturt talked about projections of one in 10 people in 30 years potentially having $3 million in a superannuation account—this from a member of the former government, which encouraged young people to raid their superannuation accounts during the pandemic while they wasted billions of dollars giving money to businesses who did not run at a loss during the pandemic. I would say to young people, if they've heard the member for Sturt's contribution and may be concerned about their superannuation balances in 30 years, that there will be a government here in 30 years, and what is in place now with $3 million attached to it is not fixed in time forever by any government. Deputy Speaker, I commend this bill to the House, I commend the work of the Assistant Treasurer, and I thank you for the time in the chamber.

Anne Stanley (Werriwa, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to make my contribution to the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023. The Albanese government is committed to ensuring that the Treasury portfolio legislation remains current and fit for purpose. The amendments in this bill are mostly technical in nature and are intended to reduce the complexity in Australia's corporations and financial services law, increase navigability and enhance clarity. Although they are only technical in nature, that doesn't mean they are any less important or require any less debate in this House. These amendments, of course, will be important for anyone who touches the system, from consumers to providers of services—in other words, all Australians. Simplicity means that all players in this system have an opportunity to fully understand their rights and obligations.

Schedules 1, 2 and 3 of the bill implement the Australian Law Reform Commission's interim report A and interim report B on the legislative frameworks for corporations and financial services regulations. The Australian Law Reform Commission's review was initiated in 2020 and formed part of the Australian government's response to the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. The purpose of the review is to inquire into potential simplifications and rationalisations of Australia's financial services law. It is an important inquiry that is complicated, complex and necessarily thorough.

Interim report A was handed down in 2021. Interim report B was handed down in September 2022. Interim report A contained recommendations in relation to the reform of corporations and financial services legislation, and interim report B focused on the location of material within the legislative hierarchy, who makes regulation, and the structure and organisation of legislation. The Australian Law Reform Commission's final report is to be provided to this government in November 2023.

Schedules 1 to 3 of this bill will improve and simplify law by unfreezing the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 so the current version applies to the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001; creating a single glossary of all defined terms in section 9 of the Corporations Act; repealing redundant provisions, including definitions that are no longer used and cross-references to repealed provisions; correcting errors; and improving clarity, with a particular focus on terms defined as having more than one meaning and definitions containing substantive obligations. These are straightforward recommendations of the interim reports that are to be implemented prior to the final report due at the end of this year.

Schedule 4 of this bill relates to certain legislative instruments that regulate the insurance industry that are due to sunset on 1 October 2023. These amendments to the Insurance Acquisition and Takeovers Act 1991, Life Insurance Act 1995 and the Insurance Act 1973 are for the purpose of sunsetting. These legislative instruments are to ensure they are kept up to date and only remain as long as they are needed. These acts regulate the types of persons that may carry an insurance businesses, and prescribe the standards that ensure the effective and careful management of the insurance industry in order to protect consumers and policy holders. It is of course the government's responsibility to ensure that policy holders and consumers are protected so they know what they are being covered for, and that the companies providing the coverage that has been agreed to will provide that coverage if the worst happens and they need to act on the policies.

The amendments in schedule 4 of this bill are again of a technical nature and will update certain provisions to reflect modern communication practices, allow regulators to administratively prescribe the manner and form of certain notices to increase flexibility and to align with modern drafting practices, and move some provisions in the insurance instruments into the primary legislation. Sunsetting is necessary, and sunsetting clauses in any legislation, particularly in this legislation, are necessary to ensure that legislative instruments are kept up to date, are relevant and only remain in force as long as needed. They are part of the way that we simplify acts of parliament.

Schedule 5 of this bill amends the Corporations Act and the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 and will incorporate long-standing and accepted matters that are currently found in the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, ASIC, legislation. There has been a long-term reliance on ASIC's exemption and modification powers relating to updating the law for changing circumstances. This can make it difficult for regulated entities to fully understand the state of the law as it applies to them.

Schedule 5 will improve the clarity of the law so that regulated entities are provided with certainty, and so that consumers understand their rights and obligations. Our financial systems are better fit for purpose when everybody involved in the system understands what they should do, their rights and their expectations.

The sixth and final schedule of this bill relates to minor technical amendments to various laws. These amendments will ensure laws operate in accordance with the policy intent, and make minor changes that will improve administrative outcomes. It also makes amendments to remedy unintended consequences and correct technical and drafting defects.

These minor yet important amendments reflect the Albanese government's commitment to the ongoing maintenance of Treasury laws, to ensure that the law is operated as intended and to make it easy for all Australians and Australian entities to comply with our current laws. Schedules 1 to 6 of the bill deliver on a need to update and ensure Treasury laws are fit for purpose constantly and consistently. I note these bills were the subject of public consultation at various times since November 2022. The government has considered all submissions, and many of the submissions made are reflected in the bill before the House today.

The government appreciates the interest shown by everybody who made these contributions, as we want to ensure that we improve the financial system for all players and that we get the legislation right. I thank the Assistant Treasurer and the Minister for Financial Services for his continued work in this space. As someone who worked for the financial industry for a very long time, I know that anything that simplifies the rules for the people who work there and the people who are getting financial products is very important. So I commend the bill to the House and look forward to it passing.

Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to make a contribution on this important piece of legislation, the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023. This is about the third or fourth time I've spoken on a TLAB in my one year here in parliament. I know they're sometimes a bit dense on detail, but, Mr Deputy Speaker Freelander and colleagues, I'm one of those MPs who tend to like to delve into the detail here, because what these TLABs often do is the heavy lifting of the government. They change our rules, regulations and laws so that the policy ambitions of a new government can be put through.

It gives me great pleasure to make a contribution, as we've heard from other members of parliament here today, because within this TLAB we have six schedules that attempt to clean up a lot of legislation and act upon recommendations from some really important organisations, and schedules 1 to 3 start with exactly that. They look to act on recommendations from the Australian Law Reform Commission. This is an incredibly important organisation. The Australian Law Reform Commission undertakes research and provides recommendations to reform the law on topics that have been selected by the Attorney-General of Australia. Not all of them are taken up by government, but, if we look at the history of the ALRC, 85 per cent of its reports have been either substantially or partially implemented, making the ALRC one of the most effective and influential agents for legal reform in Australia.

In this TLAB, what the government is doing is taking some of the ALRC's very important recommendations and putting them into law. Schedules 1 to 3 of this bill enact recommendations made by the Australian Law Reform Commission in interim reports A and B of its really important Review of the Legislative Framework for Corporations and Financial Services Regulation. The purpose of the review was to inquire into the potential simplification and rationalisation of our financial services law. What schedules 1 to 3 of the bill intend to do is improve the navigability of and simplify the law by unfreezing the Acts Interpretation Act so that the current version applies to the Corporations Act and to create a single glossary of defined terms in section 9 of the Corporation Act. Importantly, the bill cleans out some of these laws. It repeals redundant provisions, including definitions that are no longer used, and it cross-references to repealed provisions. It also corrects errors. Believe it or not, sometimes there are a few errors in legislation and documents, so, importantly, we sometimes need to bring some correction to the parliament so that we can clean up some of the errors. It also improves clarity, with a particular focus on terms defined as having more than one meaning, so that definitions contain substantive obligations.

This is really dense content, but they're important parts of the working of government, and I commend schedules 1 to 3. I am encouraged by those from the other side who have spoken on this already. They, too, see the benefit in doing this spring cleaning on some of these bills and legislation, so I thank the opposition for their support of this bill.

Schedule 4 speaks to insurance. It seeks to make amendments to the Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1991 and a number of other insurance acts. Those acts are enabling acts of certain legislative instruments regulating the insurance industry. They're due to sunset on 1 October 2023. Sunsetting is the automatic repeal of legislative instruments after a certain date unless action is taken to retain them. It's an important measure that governments of all persuasions use to make sure that instruments are kept up to date and only remain in force for as long as they are needed.

In my short time in this place, I've seen sunsetting used for good benefit. Our policy to reduce taxes on electric vehicles—and I'll repeat that: our policies to reduce taxes on electric vehicles, which was opposed by those opposite—had a sunset clause in it on plug-in hybrid electric vehicles.

I thought that was a good amendment by the crossbench in the other place because it recognised that plug-in hybrid vehicles were a good starting point for people to make the transition to electric vehicles. In that piece of legislation back then, sunsetting was able to acknowledge that, so that for three years people could buy plug-in hybrid vehicles—which are a mix of electric vehicles and traditional powered vehicles in one. They were able to use the sunsetting clause to acknowledge that it's important, as we transition out of fossil fuel dominated transport industries to low-emission transport, that there are provisions for those vehicles in particular to form part of our very important tax breaks to businesses and to consumers to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles. Sunsetting has been used over and over by governments of all persuasions, and I fully endorse the measures that are contained within this bill in regard to sunsetting.

The amendments in this TLAB will help ensure that the sunsetting insurance instruments that are still necessary are up to date and fit for purpose. The amendments in schedule 4 are primarily technical and include updating to certain provisions to reflect modern communication practices. And don't we need that! I know, Deputy Speaker Freelander, that you follow the medical and health industry quite closely, and I know in that industry faxes are still used sometimes, aren't they?

Mike Freelander (Macarthur, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Indeed they are.

Jerome Laxale (Bennelong, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They're still used sometimes, so we all need to update our communications practices. I'm here with my iPad, reading some very important notes so I can make this contribution on this bill, and updating our communication practices is important—

The DEPUTY SP EAKER: I have my fax here.

Hopefully, this bill contains measures which mean we don't need to go back to the fax and we can use some modern communications practices to deal with insurance acquisitions and takeovers. Other amendments will mean that regulators can prescribe the manner and form of certain notices to increase flexibility, and they'll move some provisions in insurance instruments into the primary legislation.

Schedule 5 rationalises the ending of ASIC instruments and amends a number of acts contained in the Australian Securities and Investment Commission's legislation. The long-term reliance on ASIC's exemption and modification powers to update the law for changing circumstances makes it difficult for regulated entities to understand the full state of the law as it applies to them. The amendments in schedule 5 improve clarity of the law, and they provide certainty for regulated organisation entities and consumers to understand their rights and obligations.

I'd like to use this opportunity to call out the good work of our regulators—ASIC, APRA and the ACCC. In my role on the House Economics Committee I often get the opportunity to hold private briefings and public inquiries with them, and they do a fantastic job with limited resources. Hopefully, putting some of these amendments through will enable them to focus on their core business and provide certainty for regulated entities and consumers so they can understand their rights and obligations.

Schedule 6 contains minor and technical amendments. These small changes amend various laws in the Treasury portfolio to ensure that those laws operate in accordance with the policy intent. They make minor changes to improve administrative outcomes and remedy unintended consequences, as well as to correct technical and drafting defects. The amendments have been identified by a number of Treasury portfolio agencies, and they are the result of consultation with affected users of the laws. These amendments made in schedule 6, even though they're very technical in nature, reflect the Albanese government's commitment to the ongoing care and maintenance of Treasury laws to rectify minor problems with the law that prevent it from operating as intended.

I'd like to call out the responsible ministers—the member for Whitlam and the Treasurer. As mentioned at the start of my speech, a lot of this content is very dense and very detailed, and it takes two very engaged ministers to be able to ensure the hard work of the Treasury law amendment bill is done.

I give a shout-out to them for the work that they do. Some of these technical amendments in schedule 6 were first supported by recommendations way back in 2008.

We know those opposite for 10 years took their eyes off the ball, particularly in the dying days of the former government, but that's not the case with the Albanese government. We've got two ministers in the Treasury portfolio who are doing a fantastic job. I commend this Treasury Laws Amendment bill to the House and I look forward to my next contribution on the following bill, Treasury Laws Amendment Bill (2023 Measures No. 3) Bill 2023.

David Smith (Bean, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I also rise to speak in support of the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023. I commend earlier contributions to this debate and also look forward to the contribution of the member for Bennelong on the next bill coming up for debate.

The Albanese government, as part of its regulatory stewardship role—a role that we take incredibly seriously—is progressing amendments to ensure that Treasury portfolio legislation remains current and fit for purpose. The amendments in this bill, as many speakers have said, are mostly technical and will reduce complexity in Australia's corporations and financial services law, increasing its navigability and enhancing its clarity—all important aims. For the hard work in bringing this bill to parliament, I would also like to thank the Assistant Treasurer, his team and the incredible, hardworking public servants that have worked to identify these changes and implement these changes to reduce red tape for businesses and consumers.

Yesterday I spoke about the importance of expertise in the Public Service, and the comments that I made yesterday equally apply to the detailed work that goes into making sure that the recommendations from reviews are able to properly take effect in legislation such as this.

For some context, particularly in relation to the changes proposed in schedule 1: in September 2020 the then Attorney-General asked the Australian Law Reform Commission to inquire into the potential simplification of laws regulating Australian corporations and financial services as part of the government's response to the 2019 Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. The ALRC found, unsurprisingly, that the law is challenging to navigate and complex for individuals and businesses and that it needed to be simplified to ensure its intent is met. Additionally, the ALRC's interim report A focused on the use of definitions. It found that complexity could be reduced by using defined terms only where this reduces repetition and enhances readability, improving the design of definitions and using defined terms consistently throughout the corporations law.

The ALRC made 13 recommendations along with 24 proposals and questions for further consideration. The recommendations primarily address unnecessary complexity in the corporations and financial services law, as I said. They unfreeze the AIA, create a single glossary of terms, remove redundant definitions and make other simplifications. The ALRC review effectively called for some spring cleaning to be done to make it easier for business to operate. While it may only be winter, the government is getting on with the job of implementing these recommendations.

As I said earlier, schedules 1 to 3 to the bill implement recommendations that were identified by the ALRC in interim reports A and B from the ALRC review. These include unfreezing the application of the AIA to the Corporations Act and the ASIC Act, creating a single glossary for all defined terms in the Corporations Act, repealing redundant definitions, addressing unclear or incorrect provisions and simplifying unnecessarily complex provisions in the law.

Schedules 1 to 3 will improve that navigability and simplify the law by improving clarity, with a particular focus on terms defined as having more than one meaning and on definitions containing substantive obligations; by correcting errors, because, as the member for Bennelong said, despite best intentions, there are errors that do occur in our legislation and it's important to do that spring clean; and, of course, by repealing redundant definitions. The consequence of these changes in schedules 1 to 3 will facilitate a more adaptive, efficient and navigable legislative framework which ensures that the legislative intent is actually met.

Schedule 4 to the bill creates amendments to the Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1991, the Life Insurance Act 1995 and the Insurance Act 1973. Those acts are the enabling acts of certain legislative instruments regulating the insurance industry that are currently due to sunset on 1 October 2023, not that far away. As the member for Fraser talked about earlier, sunsetting is the automatic repeal of legislative instruments after a certain date unless action is taken to retain them. Sunsetting is important to ensure that legislative instruments are kept up to date and only remain in force so long as they are needed.

The purpose of the relevant insurance acts is to protect policyholders by regulating the types of persons that may carry on insurance businesses and prescribing standards to ensure the prudent management of the insurance industry. The amendments will help to ensure that the sunsetting insurance instruments come up to date and are actually fit for purpose when they are remade. As previous speakers have said, they are primarily technical, but they include updating certain provisions to reflect modern communication practices—I note your important contribution, Deputy Speaker Freelander, on the relevance of fax machines still in some enterprises—to allow regulators to administratively prescribe the manner and form of certain notices to increase flexibility and align with modern drafting practices. The amendments also include moving some provisions in the insurance instruments into the primary legislation. Essentially, these amendments to the enabling acts of certain legislative instruments will help to ensure, as I said, that they remain up to date and fit for purpose when they're remade. They're primarily technical in nature, but it's still critical that they be made.

On the changes proposed in schedule 5 and the rationalisation of ending ASIC instruments: class orders and legislative instruments that notionally amend the primary law or regulations may cause complexity in the law and undermine accessibility. This can make it difficult for entities to identify and understand the law as it applies to them. Schedule 5 to the bill moves these notional amendments into primary law and regulations to provide greater certainty and clarity of the law and make it easier for industry and consumers to navigate Treasury laws. To achieve this, schedule 5 to the bill amends the Corporations Act and the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 to incorporate longstanding matters currently contained in the Australian Securities and Investments Commission legislation. Long-term reliance on ASIC's exemption and modification powers to update the law for changing circumstances makes it difficult for regulated entities to understand the full state of the law as it applies to them. The amendments in schedule 5 to the bill will improve the clarity of the law, provide certainty and make it simpler for regulated entities and consumers to properly understand their rights and obligations.

As the Assistant Treasurer made clear in his second reading speech on this bill, for a long time ASIC relied on its exemption and modification powers under the enabling acts to update the law for changing circumstances. But this is a more appropriate approach, moving the operation of those legislative instruments into the primary law. This provides, as I said, greater clarity and certainty and is actually a much better approach for consumers to properly understand their rights and obligations.

Moving on to schedule 6, there is an ongoing need to make technical amendments and corrections to Treasury portfolio legislation at times, to rectify minor problems with the law that prevent it from operating as intended. The minor and technical amendment process in this schedule is consistent with the recommendation made by the Tax Design Review Panel in 2008. This panel was appointed to examine how to reduce delays in the enactment of tax legislation and to improve the quality of tax law changes. It has since been expanded to all Treasury portfolio legislation. The panel identified a requirement that appropriate priority should be given to the ongoing care and maintenance of the taxation system. The regular minor and technical amendments process has since been expanded to cover all Treasury portfolio laws. This schedule makes minor and technical amendments to those laws to make sure that they appropriately operate in accordance with policy intent. Some minor changes are also made to improve administrative outcomes, remedy unintended consequences and correct technical or drafting defects. The amendments have been identified by Treasury portfolio agencies and the Office of Parliamentary Counsel.

Again, I would like to thank the Assistant Treasurer, his team and the public servants who've done so much work in this dry but important area, for all the work they have done on this legislation. This legislation again reflects the hard work that the Albanese government is prepared to do to make sure that business is easier to do here in Australia. Those opposite have often talked about the need to continue to reduce red tape in Australia and make business easier in this country. Since the election of the Albanese government, doing business in this country has continued to become easier, which was a focus of our last budget. We're progressing these amendments to ensure that Treasury portfolio legislation remains current and fit for purpose. The amendments in this bill are mostly technical and will reduce complexity in Australia's corporations and financial services law, increase its navigability and enhance its clarity. I welcome the support of those opposite and some of the positive contributions that they have made to this debate. Again, I'd like to thank the Assistant Treasurer and the incredible hardworking public servants who have worked to identify these changes to reduce red tape for business and consumers. I commend this bill to the House.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You have a lot more hair!

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

I do have more hair, but he has a much larger brain than I do, and he finds it a much more enjoyable process, which is why he is charged with overseeing the committee that deals with public accounts and audit. He does a very good job of it, I might say, as well. But unless you work within this space, unless you're spending every day operating in it—whether it's insurance or other financial services products—it can be very challenging to understand the particulars of this. The role of regulation in this space is to ensure that the communication about both the products themselves and the detail that sits behind them can be understood to the best quality possible by the purchaser.

Schedule 5 is about the rationalisation of particular ASIC instruments, and it amends the Corporations Act, as well as the National Consumer Credit Protection Act, to incorporate longstanding matters that are currently contained within the ASIC legislation. There's been a long-term reliance on ASIC's exemption and modification powers that address the changing circumstances that make it difficult for regulated entities to understand the full state of the law as it applies to them. Again, this just comes back to sensibility. If it is difficult for actors to understand the laws to which they are supposed to adhere, then we cannot truly have a reasonable expectation that they will be able to. Creating or maintaining laws in this place that are impractical to adhere to is a folly business. We have a sensible approach to trying to rationalise those powers, make them clearer, make them better understood and ensure that the regulator's role is clearly defined and the industries that they are regulating can adhere to the laws accordingly. Clarity, certainty, simplification—these are simple concepts that this particularly well-thought-through TLAB seeks to address.

Finally, in schedule 6 there are minor and technical amendments, perhaps less dynamic than some of those other matters that I've just addressed. The reality is that, at the end of the day, there are some drier matters that need to be dealt with through these processes. Schedule 6 reflects the government's commitment to the ongoing care and maintenance of the Treasury laws. It rectifies some of the minor problems with the law that prevent it from operating as intended, and, importantly, as I've already discussed, it makes it easier for Australians to comply with the laws that apply to them. Again, that comes back to the issue of practicability. Our laws must be practicable for those that need to comply with them, because, if we create and maintain laws that are difficult to comply with, we can't have a reasonable expectation that people will.

I will conclude where I started. It is a good opportunity for us to examine, on a bipartisan basis, these important TLAB bills that we don't always have the time—we can't always get the time—to prioritise. I would like to particularly note the hard work of Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones in regard to this. A lot of his work and the work of his team goes through this parliament on a bipartisan basis. It is the core of our Treasury and taxation system, and he deserves commendation, as does his team, for the hard work that they do in this space.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

ILL () (): I rise to speak on the Treasury Laws Amendment (2023 Law Improvement Package No. 1) Bill 2023. I'm just checking that the member for Forde opposite wouldn't like to make a contribution, because I'd be happy to hear him.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

It's all yours.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Alright. Is there anyone else over there who wants to make a contribution? Of course, the tradition of the chamber, the practice of the House, is that we alternate the call from one side to the other, and, as the member for Hawke so aptly said, it is important that TLABs, Treasury laws amendment bills, are the subject of considered review and debate. These bills are almost always put through the House on a bipartisan basis. Despite those opposite professing to take an interest—they consider themselves the custodians of economic law and Treasury laws—it's somewhat disappointing that the speaking list doesn't have more presence and more engagement from the members of the opposition, but nevertheless. I thank the member for Hawke for his contribution and for his kind words suggesting that I have a big brain. You know what they say about people who have big brains.

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

What's that?

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

They need very big hats! You, of course, have big hair, which is a trademark.

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

I wouldn't dare put a hat on it!

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

He wouldn't dare put a hat on it. The member for Macnamara was a new member in the last parliament, and he had very big hair. So he's got a bit of competition. But we discovered that this is not blow dried. This is genetic. This is just how things are.

Treasury laws amendment bills are some of the most exciting bills, of course, in the parliament, second only to statute law revision bills.

Treasury law amendment bills tend to be introduced throughout the term and often at very short notice, because one of the purposes of Treasury law amendment bills is to fix up loopholes, things that may not have been predicted, but, as a result of court cases, people have found ways around the taxation law for tax avoidance, and governments of the day have an urgent need to rush legislation in to close those loopholes.

I think it was a particularly welcome announcement late last year by the minister for industrial employment relations, Tony Burke, when he said that he was going to adopting the practice of Treasury law amendment bills in the workplace relations portfolio. Those opposite may be a little bit upset about this, because they've never seen a loophole used by employers to lower the pay of workers that they haven't liked. I never saw them, in their nine years in government, rush in an urgent piece of legislation to close down a loophole that employers used to cut or hold down the pay of workers. But we were inspired by the practice of these Treasury laws amendment bills, and we'll be adopting that in the coming months and years in relation to workplace relations laws.

With regard to the bill, schedules 1 to 3 are the product of very considered and deliberative policy processes based on the Australian Law Reform Commission's recommendations. They've been subject to detailed consultation, which I may get time to remark upon. I'm sure the member for Forde would appreciate being reminded of the dates of that consultation some months ago following the Australian Law Reform Commission's recommendations. Schedule 1 to 3 of the bill enact the recommendations remade by the ALRC in its interim report A and interim report B of its report of the legislative frameworks for the corporations and financial services regulation. Actually, I was privileged in the last term of the parliament to serve as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. It's somewhat arcane, somewhat nerdy, a bit like the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, which I've been assigned to for some years. But it does really important work on behalf of the parliament and also on behalf of taxpayers, citizens and the business community in keeping an eye on the corporate regulators.

The corporations law is horrifically complex. I think the technical term would be 'about one bazillion pages' and is full of contradictions and has a whole range of particularly strange and arcane ways in which it needs to be applied and interpreted. My partner has actually recently gone to the bar as a corporations barrister, so I wish I knew less about the corporations law! But I smile and nod along as I'm told about new and interesting features we've discovered. Schedules 1 to 3 of the bill, importantly, improve the navigability and simplify this incredibly complex, voluminous legislation by creating a single glossary of all defined terms in section 9 of the Corporations Act. I think the member for Ford will be pleased to know I'll probably run out of time and won't actually read the glossary to you! But I could do so if you wish; maybe we could have a special reading later on. It also unfreezes the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, so the current version applies to the Corporations Act 2001 and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001; repeals redundant provisions, including definitions that are no longer used and which cross-reference to the repealed provisions; and corrects errors. Despite all of the professional integrity that the parliamentary counsel and others used to draft, unfortunately is the case that occasionally errors creep into legislation.

It was actually one of the genius moves of the former government—I think they abandoned it fairly soon after they tried it, but one of their particular genius moments was when they decided they would privatise some of the work of the parliamentary counsel. Wasn't that a glorious era! They thought they'd get the big law firms that make a whole lot of money from administering the law to start drafting the law. If you think PwC was a problem, how do you reckon it would go with the big law forms actually having the pen and writing legislation? I think eventually the former government backed off from that because they found that the quality wasn't very good. Who knew that the drafting of legislation is an art in itself? But it's an art that's held in the public sector under the guidance of the parliamentary counsel. Having been a public servant many years ago, I can tell you that arguing with the parliamentary counsel is not very fun. They're very particular; they have a very particular way of doing things, but that is for good reason—tried and tested.

When you listen to them, generally, it leads to fewer errors in legislation, like the ones that we're correcting today.

The bill will improve clarity 'with a particular focus on terms defined as having more than one meaning and definitions containing substantive obligations'. In a sense, it is reducing complexity and cutting red tape. Actually, in the Federation Chamber some years ago—the place where good speeches go to die—the now Attorney-General made me a bet that I couldn't speak for 15 minutes on the Statue Law Revision Bill. I thought, 'Alright; I'm going to do this,' and I won the bet. I threatened my staff for months afterwards that I'd publish it on my social media and further distort and hurt the algorithm. I learnt an interesting thing about the former government while researching that bill. Remember Tony Abbott's cutting red tape, Deputy Speaker Goodenough? You were here for that. He was going to cut red tape; it was one of his big things. He had this weird, dodgy accounting mechanism where he was adding up all the economic value that he was creating by cutting red tape. When you delved into the detail of the Statue Law Revision Bill, you realised the whole thing was an accounting mirage. He was counting $50,000 of economic efficiency for removing semicolons. Apparently, this was going to make the legal profession and the businesses trying to comply with the law that much more efficient because they would no longer have to look at the semicolons and the superfluous and's. If you'd be interested, I could send you a Hansard copy of that speech, Member for Forde—if you have a sleeping disorder of any sort or you just need to nod off to sleep.

Bert Van Manen (Forde, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I'm good, thanks.

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

You're okay? You could follow along with the glossary.

Schedule 4, in relation to insurance, is also important. It makes amendments to the Insurance Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1991, the Life Insurance Act 1995 and the Insurance Act 1973. That's the year I was born, actually. You can do the maths—I've recently had a special birthday. I called it 'my next 40th', living in denial to some degree. Those acts are the enabling acts of the legislative instruments which regulate the insurance industry, and they're due to sunset on 1 October 2023. Of course, 'sunset' doesn't mean the lights go out. I was once giving a speech in here about Julian Assange—it was sort of incongruous—and the lights literally went out. It was like the parliament had been hacked the moment that I mention Julian Assange, who the United States government should drop the charges against.

Sunsetting doesn't mean sundown; it means the date at which a piece of legislation is automatically repealed unless action is taken to retain it. That is an important accountability mechanism for the parliament to impose when making laws. We make a lot of laws. We like to think they're all necessary—the Senate mucks up our work at times, of course—but it is important that laws are reviewed, that they're not static. The parliament deems it appropriate to put a self-executing end to certain pieces of legislation to force public servants and ministers to consciously review them and determine whether there's an ongoing need for them. Occasionally, embarrassingly for governments of all persuasions, a sunset date is missed, but not in this instance. It is important that legislative instruments are kept up to date.

The purpose of the relevant insurance act is to protect policyholders by regulating the types of persons that may carry on an insurance business—I'm sure the member for Lalor would agree that this is a very important measure—and prescribe standards to ensure the prudent management of the insurance industry. These amendments will help to ensure that the sunsetting insurance instruments that are still necessary are up to date and fit for purpose when they're remade.

It's not always important, but I think today it is important that we understand that the amendments to schedule 4 in the bill are primarily technical. They include updating certain provisions to reflect modern communication practices, allowing regulators to administratively prescribe the manner and form of certain notices to increase flexibility and align with modern drafting practices, and moving some provisions in the insurance instruments into the primary legislation. That gives them greater force. Unlike delegated legislation, which can be varied by ministers through the Governor in Council—sometimes subject to disallowance, sometimes not—measures in the primary legislation can only be changed by this parliament, with royal assent of course.

There have been some shocking scandals of late in the insurance industry. Putting aside the dreadfully boring technical nature of these measures—that is some of what we must do—prescribing standards to ensure the prudent management of the industry and that only fit and proper persons are able to carry on an insurance business is so important.

The Minister for Indigenous Affairs at the table over there would know far better than I the absolutely disgraceful, shameful scandal of the funeral insurance scam that, for so many years, was being sold in vulnerable Indigenous communities. Just ripping people off blind for insurance that was overpriced, that would never be delivered on and that they did not need.

My mum was always watchful of my grandpa as he aged because sometimes he would fall for a scam. We went over one day, and she really lost it at him because he'd fallen for a door-to-door carpet salesman scam. We discovered that he'd carpeted the entire house with new carpet: the kitchen and, worse, the laundry, the outhouse and the toilet. I don't think anyone should have the area around the toilet carpeted, but particularly not an ageing man living by himself. It brought up a range of issues. She was particularly watchful that he never bought funeral insurance because overwhelmingly, in my view, it's a complete scam. It never adds up; it's just not a good idea. Don't buy funeral insurance—but don't take advice from me on insurance though. Lucky we've got privilege here!

Finally, as I think the member for Hawke might have touched on, there's schedule 5. We didn't have a member for Hawke in the last parliament. The tradition is that after a former prime minister dies then at the following election there is a seat renamed after them or, in this case, created and named after them. Victoria gained a seat at the last election, and it was named after former prime minister Bob Hawke. My seat of Bruce is named after a former prime minister. I've never been able to solve the mystery as to why the seat was created in 1955, before former prime minister Bruce died, as an exception to the ordinary custom of waiting until the person has passed.

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

Wishful thinking perhaps?

Julian Hill (Bruce, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Let's not speculate! Prime minister Bruce was the only Prime Minister until John Howard who lost his seat in a general election.

Anyway, schedule 5, 'Rationalisation of ending ASIC instruments', amends the Corporations Act and the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 to incorporate longstanding matters currently contained in the Australian Securities and Investments Commission legislation. This long-term reliance on ASIC's exemption and modification powers to update the law for changing circumstances makes it difficult for regulated entities to understand the full state of the law as it applies to them. And so the amendments in schedule 5 improve the clarity of the law, provide certainty and make it simpler for regulated entities and consumers to understand their rights and obligations.

It's really important, as I said—and I will finish where I started—that, overall, these amendments flowed from the ALRC's work in relation to schedules 2 and 3, but they both have a mix of important policy measures such as in relation to insurance while improving the clarity and the understanding of the law for all those in the country who need to read it. And look, I apologise to the member for Forde. I haven't had time to read out the glossary of terms or to take you through the consultation that preceded the bill.

Ordered that the resumption of the debate be made an order of the day for a later hour.