David Bradbury (Lindsay, Australian Labor Party, Assistant Treasurer ) Share this | Hansard source

I would like to thank those members who have contributed to the debate on the Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Bill 2013. This is the sixth statute stocktake bill since 1998. The bill follows the Statute Stocktake (Appropriations) Act (No. 1) 2012 as part of the government's ongoing process of cleaning up the statute book. The bill will repeal 84 annual appropriation acts from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2010. The bill does not appropriate any money. Acts proposed for repeal include 28 old acts for the ordinary annual services of the government, 28 old acts other than for the ordinary annual services of the government, 15 old acts for the operations of parliamentary departments and 13 old acts in relation to supplementary estimates appropriations. Consistent with the government's deregulation agenda, the bill will enable the repeal of many subsidiary laws made in connection with these old appropriation acts. No agency will be denied access to appropriations from this bill, to the extent that old appropriation amounts may potentially need to be reappropriated through other processes. The government will continue to review appropriation acts to determine whether further appropriations are redundant and can be repealed.

Can I respond to some of the suggestions, made by the member for Goldstein and others, that this government has strangled business with more red tape. I remind members of the House that the Howard government made very similar promises to the sorts of promises that are being made by the opposition at present in relation to their aspirations to reduce red tape. The Howard government will go down in the history of this country as being the government responsible for the greatest increase in red tape for business and, in particular, small businesses. The GST, in fact, is the single biggest contributor to the red tape challenge that small businesses face in this country.

Mr Hawke interjecting—

The member for Mitchell says, 'That's not what they say.' I could take him through reams and reams of ministerial correspondence that flows into my office on a regular basis where they still—

Mr Hawke interjecting—

I am not going to table a confidential matter, but I am happy to take the member for Mitchell through it, he being someone that I think is sufficiently in touch with his local community to make the point that the coalition's paid parental leave scheme will be very, very damaging for the business community and the Australian economy. He would also know that the GST has imposed an enormous regulatory burden on small business. So I simply make the point that while those opposite say, 'We will reduce red tape,' that probably puts them in line with every other opposition that ever existed in the history of this country.

What we will find is that they have form, and if they get elected they will be every bit as zealous in their regulatory wrapping-up of small business as the Howard government was, because we know now that they are very much committed to expanding the range of goods and services that the GST applies to, and increasing the rate. For small businesses operating in areas where they have finally, after 12 years of meeting the regulatory impost of this tax, come to terms with it, they will now face the prospect of having to expand the range of items and to completely redo their accounting systems in order to make sure that they comply.

As opposed to that, we have seen this government repealing acts—four of them being repealed here today—and we will continue to do that. We have a strong record when it comes to sensible deregulation but those opposite say one thing in opposition, but if they ever get the chance in government they do exactly the opposite.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.

See this speech in context