Andrew Robb (Goldstein, Liberal Party, Chairman of the Coalition Policy Development Committee) Share this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill 2013. The bill, if enacted, would repeal 84 redundant annual appropriation acts from 1 July 1999 through until 30 June 2010 inclusive. It would also repeal numerous subsidiary laws related to the old acts. The proposed amendments have no financial impact and any minor amounts that may not be redundant require consideration for reappropriation, with all total current expenditure reflected in the current forward estimate forecasts. This forms part of an ongoing housekeeping exercise aimed at reducing the size of the Commonwealth statute book through the removal of unnecessary and redundant legislation. This is the seventh bill since 1934 to repeal redundant appropriation acts, with the previous bills resulting in the repeal of redundant appropriation acts from 1901 through until 1999-2000. The most recent statute stocktake bill was passed in 2012 and was also supported by the coalition.

While this initiative is certainly worthwhile, it is a long bow for the government to draw to assert that this forms part of a substantive deregulation agenda. While the repeal of the acts will reduce the size of the statute book, measured in inches, it will not result in any easing of the Commonwealth regulatory burden on business, measured in billions of dollars.

It must be remembered that the government made grand promises on the deregulation front. We all remember its 'one in, one out' pledge regarding new regulation. Gosh, do we remember that one! It went on for months and months and months, made a big play and, I think, played a big part in confusing and misleading people in the run-down to the 2007 election. It was a hand-on-heart, one in, one out pledge regarding new regulations—very clear, very precise, very direct, a very firm commitment.

Instead we have had a firestorm of new regulation under this government and very little reduction in regulation. In fact, there has been a conveyor belt of regulation going through this place in the last few years, with the cooperation of the Greens in the Senate and, in many cases, debates being truncated and no real opportunity for consultation with the stakeholders. So often there have been reams of new regulations, tens of thousands of new regulations, running through this parliament, against the promise, the absolute firm commitment, of the one in, one out pledge.

Last Friday I did my 133rd boardroom since the last election and I have to say that the most consistent and overwhelming concern raised with me by members of companies all over Australia, from all sectors, is the choking regulation that is now becoming such a discouragement to risk and investment. This government has been responsible for a large number of sovereign risk issues with rule changes endlessly going on and, on top of that, with a weight of regulation and reporting requirements which have now got beyond all levels of responsibility and are excessive in the extreme. The carbon tax, the mining tax, child care, contractors, telecommunications, aged care, pharmaceuticals industry, shipping—you name it, they overregulated it. It has happened in Labor's last term of office and it happened in its first term of office. ComLaw register figures show that since 2007 Labor has introduced 21,000 new items of regulation. By comparison, it has repealed a little over 1,100, most of which were redundant items that have no material impact. So 21,000 versus 1100—and this was against a promise of one in, one out.

It is disappointing the government did not take this opportunity for more substantive reform. The coalition are committed to an aggressive deregulation agenda. Unlike this bill, we will annually remove Commonwealth regulation costing the community $1 billion. We will have days in the parliament dedicated solely to the removal of regulations that are currently holding back and discouraging any appetite for risk and investment in this country. In a tight fiscal environment, one of the most powerful things we can do for business is to reduce costs. Notwithstanding, I commend this bill to the House.

See this speech in context