Ted O'Brien (Fairfax, Liberal Party, Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill 2025. This bill seeks to modernise and streamline parts of the Commonwealth's regulatory framework. Some items are simply housekeeping. They tidy up outdated provisions, remove redundant laws and allow commonsense changes, like accepting secure digital identification or fixing minor compliance concerns. Other measures aim to make it easier for people to interact with government by improving data-sharing inside Services Australia, reducing duplication in health and pathology processes, and supporting a tell-us-once approach so Australians do not have to constantly re-prove who they are.

On the surface, these all sound worthy. Some may well save time for households and small businesses. Some will clean up clutter that has been allowed to build for too long. I will not take the House through every single schedule. Instead, I'll set out the coalition's views on the package and then address two areas of contention.

Where the bill makes it easier for Australians to deal with government, we are inclined to support it. A tell-us-once approach, which means Australians won't have to enter their details every single time they access a different government service, is common sense. Better use of health identifiers to avoid duplication looks like it will help patients and clinicians. Smarter information-sharing inside Services Australia looks to be good, especially and if privacy safeguards are upheld.

On reading this bill, my initial thought was not in any way that a lot of the items were silly; the thing that got me was reading the detail of the bill and then reading the title again—the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill. The thing is: this isn't really reform. None of this is genuine, substantive red tape reduction. Rather, it is largely worthwhile housekeeping—things that simply should be done.

The Treasurer says this bill follows on from his economic roundtable. Really? The government waited three years before then taking three months to organise a three-day economic roundtable. There's no doubt that regulatory reform was a big stated objective and also a big stated outcome from that roundtable. But then you read the details of this bill, the so-called Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill, and it is completely underwhelming. We welcomed at the time the economic roundtable; I myself attended. I did warn, though, that the 20-odd people behind closed doors in parliament would not turn the economy around. I saw myself there as representing the 27 million Australians who were not in the room, who were locked out. I take this bill as evidence that the coalition was right to be sceptical of that process. Don't get me wrong; there are some worthy measures in the bill. But the government cannot argue that it is seriously tackling, with this bill, Australia's problem of being overregulated. If you were to listen to the Treasurer you might think so, but, sadly, I think not.

The latest national accounts published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics reflect the economic crisis under this government. The latest September data revealed what Australians already know: under the Albanese government, households are poorer and our economy is weaker. The June quarter figures show Australia's economy grew at its slowest pace outside the pandemic since the 1990s. Since Labor came to office, Australians have suffered the deepest fall in living standards in the developed world and remain stuck in a cost-of-living crisis. The Albanese government promised a private-sector-led recovery, yet business investment is stalled. While household spending lifted modestly in the June quarter, helped by the holiday period and end-of-year sales, it is no substitute for sustained private sector investment and productivity growth. At a household level, the Australian economy today is smaller than the one Labor inherited three years ago and productivity is down over five per cent.

Just as Australia's inflation crisis, otherwise known to many as the 'Jimflation' effect, is destroying our national prosperity, so too is Labor's productivity crisis. Labor has become the 800-pound gorilla in the Australian economy, muscling out the private sector and weighing down our economic growth. Government spending is growing four times faster than the economy. Spending is at its highest level outside of recession in nearly 40 years, blowing government spending out from 24 to 27 per cent of GDP. In the last three years, Labor has added $100 billion to the national debt, which is set to hit $1 trillion this year and $1.2 trillion by the time of the next election. Until the government stops its spending spree, the private sector will continue to be squeezed, and productivity and living standards will continue to languish.

To be clear, the coalition supports real regulatory reform because a competitive and productive Australia requires rules which are proportionate and efficient. Excessive regulation lifts costs for households and businesses, and I make the point that this government has indeed enhanced its regulatory regime. We have seen 5,000 new pieces of regulation added to the books under this government—quite an achievement. But, of course, the more that regulations are introduced, the more that they burden those actors within the economy. This government wears, as a badge of honour, the overregulation of the economy, but, unfortunately, it is leading to the poor economic outcomes that are shown every single time that the economic figures are released by the ABS. It will also no doubt be reflected in the RBA's decision later today.

You see, when you have excessive regulation, it ultimately slows down investment and discourages innovation. Good regulation protects the public interest without trying to anchor the economy, without bringing it down and tying it down. That's what good regulation is all about. What Australia needs is less regulation and improved regulation. That's what good regulation is. A simpler and more predictable regulatory regime is what helps small and medium businesses to grow, to hire, to invest and, for many, to export. It also helps Australians who rely on government services. No-one should miss out on support, but, when you have a maze of forms and paperwork that get in the way, missing out is exactly the risk that arises.

Again, that's why we on this side of the House continue to beat the drum for this government to tackle real regulatory reform, not just a list of household duties to only somewhat ease the way. Before I get into some of the details of the bill, I must first remark on the government's claim of its intent to create a more productive Australia, a worthy intent when you consider how dire the situation is under this government. Australia's competitiveness ranking has slipped. The government has already added over 5,000 new regulations, and there are more to come. Among the rats and mice of tidy-ups in this bill are a couple of more substantive items, and these happen to be ones about which we have some concerns.

The first relates to fuel security. The bill proposes to allow the minister to reduce or suspend minimum stockholding obligations of petrol, diesel and jet fuel in limited circumstances. The draft clause did not set a maximum period for reduction, which risked undermining the intent of the regime. We raised this issue with the government. The government has now circulated an amendment to address our concern. We will support that amendment, and I thank the government for listening to our advice. Fuel security should not be a partisan issue. It should not be a partisan trophy. It is a national interest test, so we thank the government for correcting course in response to the practical feedback that came from the coalition.

Secondly, I refer to the GEMS Act and demand response, which is an item forming part of this bill. The bill would change the Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Act to include promoting 'improved energy performance through better energy use and management of the demand placed on the energy system'. On the surface, this may sound harmless. But in practice, it shifts the act from product efficiency towards system control-and-demand response. That is a fundamental change in intent. There are some problems with this approach.

The first area of concern is that it expands the scope from how much energy a product uses to how and when energy is used across the system. This is not what the act was designed to regulate. GEMS—that is, the Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Act 2012—sets appliance standards. It does not set market behaviour, which is basically what this looks to be seeking to achieve.

The second area of concern is that the key terms in this GEMS adjustment in the bill are not defined. Energy performance and management of demand are very broad statements and very broad ideas. Without clear boundaries, regulators could step from product standards into rules about how devices interact with the grid. That risks new compliance costs for households and businesses without a clear mandate from parliament.

The third area of concern is that the explanatory memorandum does not explain what this change would require in practice. If the goal is to enable future demand management standards, the government should say so. It should bring forward a separate bill with clear definitions, proper consultation and a full assessment of costs and benefits. If there is a clear case for new powers, it must be made openly and it must be tested. Slipping a new object into GEMS through an omnibus is not the way to do it.

Our position is straightforward: remove the GEMS object change from this bill and consider it separately. The coalition of course supports the practical steps reflected in the bill that will make life simpler and easier for the Australian people—especially those items of the bill that make it easier to deal with government and make it easier for businesses to invest, to grow and to generate more jobs. We support the ambition of a more productive economy.

However, I am astounded that, from this government—having been returned to office with all of its talk about wanting to improve productivity, all of its talk about improving regulation, and all of its talk, after its economic roundtable, about embarking on a program of regulatory reform—this omnibus bill is all we have. This is it. It is quite extraordinary. This goes to the complete lack of ambition on the part of the government. To think that the Treasurer came back for the second term and made such a loud song-and-dance about wanting to reform regulation in this country, and all we have before us is a bill that does some housekeeping and some little tidy-ups. As worthy as some of those items are, it is a sad indictment of the lack of ambition of this government. It is why you still see business investment so low. It is why you continue to see a lagging growth in the Australian economy. It is why you continue to see Australia looked at by others in the world as a potential investment location—and then they shrug their shoulders, wondering why this country that was once ambitious is now in the slow lane.

For this to be called the Regulatory Reform Omnibus Bill speaks to what this government has become. It's a government and an administration not just lacking ambition but lacking any thought leadership. It has effectively walked around the house, chosen those little things that need to be fixed up, and cobbled together, as worthy as some of those items are, an omnibus bill. This will give no inspiration to the private sector, to potential investors, to businesses or to households. Thank you very much.

Sharon Claydon (Newcastle, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 43, and the debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.