Josh Frydenberg (Kooyong, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) Share this | Hansard source

Can I first thank all those members and colleagues on this side of the House for their terrific contributions over the course of the day. It has been an extremely important day in the history of the parliament, the first ever repeal day. It is a day that dedicated the minds of parliamentarians to the responsibility of cutting red and green tape, and therefore boosting productivity, investment and jobs.

Some specific questions have been put to me today. The member for Greenway has asked about the Australian Government Guide to Regulation. I can confirm this is a new guide. We needed this new guide, with new requirements on the public service, because we are now mandating that all cabinet submissions that have a regulatory impact require a regulatory impact statement. We needed this new guide because of the 80 examples of non-compliance by those opposite.

The member for Isaacs raised the question about the savings that are attributed to the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 1) 2014 and the amending acts. He obviously has not read the document, because on page 18 it refers to the $0.21 million in compliance costs that will be saved every year by the Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Repeal Bill, and the $0.35 million in compliance costs that is saved by the Statute Law Revision Bill. As a QC he should pay attention to the detail. The member for Gellibrand referred to the IPA—that was quite unusual for the member for Gellibrand.

They made out as if all these regulations were uncontroversial. If the repeal of redundant regulation is so uncontroversial and the efforts that we are making on repeal day are so uncontroversial, I look forward to those opposite supporting the abolition of the ACNC. I look forward to those opposite supporting our reforms to FoFA. I look forward to those opposite providing support for us to open up the Comcare scheme to save business costs. And I look forward to those opposite ensuring that the Personal Property Securities Act is not a burden on small hire firms around this country. If it is so noncontroversial, why didn't those opposite come up with these ideas and why didn't they universally endorse them?

The member for Scullin wants some changes made to imperial honours and relevant honours. That is not going to happen. The Prime Minister has made a decision and we are very comfortable with that.

The member for Melbourne asked whether workers will be better off by the deregulation initiatives that we announced today. I can emphatically tell the House that they will be far better off because, as a result of the Green thumb and the blue collar, the last parliament gave us 21,000 additional regulations. Shame on you, member for Melbourne. Shame on you, member for Scullin. Shame on the previous Labor government, because it put a burden and a shackle on business and the not-for-profit sector. Through our changes, we will ensure that we will have more employment, higher productivity and more investment and, of course, we will spur on innovation.

Those opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot on the one hand say that this is a stunt, where the regulations mean nothing, and on the other hand accuse us of taking away protections. On this side of the House, we are about getting the balance right between risk and cost. On this side of the House, we want Australia to be better off in the world rankings for overall regulatory burden than the pitiful 128th out of 148 countries which was the legacy of the previous government. I commend the bills to the House. (Time expired)

See this speech in context