Peter Dutton (Dickson, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Finance, Competition Policy and Deregulation) Share this | Hansard source

At the commencement of this government, Prime Minister Rudd outlined a process by which he claimed the incoming government would be more accountable, open and transparent. He said that one of the processes by which the government would deliver on that promise would be for ministers to deliver ministerial statements. At the time, there was no qualification made that ministerial statements needed to be of substance, and today proves that very point. This ministerial statement is certainly light on substance and really is a tick-the-box exercise for the minister.

The coalition welcomes any proposal for genuine deregulation. This statement today focuses on the best practice for regulation the government intends to maintain—which, on the reading of it, is merely a continuation of the practices introduced by the coalition government. This is just another example of ‘me-tooism’. It is proof that the government, even at this early time in its first term, has no plan for the future, and it is proof that it is simply trying to remodel coalition government initiatives and policies. Of course, the question has to be asked: ‘When the coalition has a proven track record of decreasing regulatory burdens on business and increasing productivity, why wouldn’t you?’

In its annual review of reform, Going for Growth, the OECD rated Australia first in terms of both having the lowest overall level of regulation and imposing the least impact on economic behaviour. I quote from the OECD report:

In the last decade of the 20th century, Australia became a model for other OECD countries in two respects: first, the tenacity and thoroughness with which deep structural reforms were proposed, discussed, legislated, implemented and followed up in virtually all markets, creating a deep-seated “competition culture”; and second, the adoption of fiscal and monetary frameworks that emphasised transparency and accountability and established stability oriented macro policies as a constant largely protected from political debate. Together, these structural and macro policy anchors conferred an enviable degree of resilience and flexibility on the Australian economy. The combination resulted in a prolonged period of good economic performance that shrugged off crises in its main trading partners as well as a devastating drought at home. The short-term outlook is for continuing strong growth of productivity and output, low inflation and budget surpluses accompanied by tax cuts.

This flattering testimony from the OECD is slightly embarrassing for the minister, because it not only gives a glowing endorsement to the coalition but also takes the wind out of the minister’s crusade to wind back apparent restrictive regulatory costs on business. In fact, productivity improvements across the economy mean that the average worker now produces over 20 per cent more than he or she did in 1996. That is, what used to take Australians five hours to produce now takes four hours. The minister’s statement does not tell us much, but it does tell us that the government think that the coalition did so well with deregulation that they will continue with the best practice that the coalition introduced.

The minister states that the government endorses the six principles of good regulatory process identified by the 2006 Banks task force. It was the coalition who established the 2006 Banks Taskforce on Reducing the Regulatory Burden on Business; it was the coalition who implemented the six principles of good regulatory process identified by the task force; and, in 2007, it was the coalition who launched the Best Practice Regulation Handbook, which sets out best practice regulations requirements in line with those principles. Now Labor are trying to sell regulation best practice as their own.

The record of the Rudd government so far on red tape is definitely bad. Similarly to their statements about being economic conservatives, the ALP are all talk and no action in this area. In particular, the most important new regulation introduced by the Rudd government—and certainly Labor’s first substantive piece of legislation—the Workplace Relations Amendment (Transition to Forward with Fairness) Bill 2008clearly fails the tests set out in the minister’s statement. The minister has indicated that policy proposals that are likely to have a significant impact should be subject to detailed analysis, including compliance cost measurement, to be undertaken and documented in a regulation impact statement. The transition to Forward with Fairness bill does have an RIS; however, it is totally inadequate by the government’s own test. It is only a couple of pages long and does not measure a single compliance cost change. This is clearly against the guidelines issued only a few moments ago.

Where is the analysis of whether Forward with Fairness will actually reduce business compliance costs, as the ALP repeatedly argues? It is a question that the minister might like to answer. Evidence presented at the Senate inquiry over the past two weeks has highlighted a high level of confusion and difficulty for business, particularly small business, once Labor’s transitional workplace relations legislation is enacted. Business has raised concerns about increased costs associated with the reinvigoration of the award system, as has a member of the Labor Party, with Senator Marshall suggesting last week that the ALP plan for award modernisation without disadvantaging workers or increasing employer costs is contradictory and an impossible ask.

Where is the analysis of the costs imposed on business from the abolition of AWAs and award rationalisation? These huge gaps suggest to me that either the government has no plan for reducing red tape or it knows that its plan with Forward with Fairness will increase red tape and costs on business. Today’s ministerial statement also says an assessment of an RIS will be released publicly before regulations come into effect. Will the government do this for the transition to Forward with Fairness bill? Or will the government put pressure on the Office of Best Practice Regulation to clear the bill, even though the minister explicitly rules this out? I note that two other significant Rudd government changes do not contain an RIS. Those are the changes to tax deductibility for political donations contained in the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 1) Bill 2008 and the removal of the higher education workplace relations requirements contained in another bill.

The purpose of ministerial statements is to deliver a statement from the government, by the minister, on an issue of substance. This is a particularly important issue for all business, not just for large business but, most importantly, for small and medium business. The expectation is that if the minister is going to make a ministerial statement to this parliament to address the very important issue of deregulation and reduction of red tape for small business, then he should make a statement which business can rely on and which business can look to in order to see some substantive outcome. The reality is that this government is full of rhetoric. The Rudd government’s actions on this show that today’s statement is without substance. The minister should take the first opportunity to address the concerns and the questions that I have raised as part of my contribution to this ministerial statement, but the reality still is that this was a policy announcement that was not substantive in nature and was an abuse of process of this chamber. I think that it shows the contempt and the arrogance of the minister so early on. (Time expired)

See this speech in context