House debates
Wednesday, 26 March 2014
Bills
Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2014) Bill 2014, Amending Acts 1901 to 1969 Repeal Bill 2014, Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 1) 2014; Second Reading
1:21 pm
Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source
As Tasmania's representative on the coalition's deregulation committee, which is capably led by the member for Kooyong, I have great pleasure in speaking on this legislation. It is legislation that repeals more than 10,000 unnecessary and counterproductive pieces of legislation that constitute a dead weight on Australian businesses, families and community groups.
The savings in this first tranche of red and green tape reductions exceed $700 million, and we are committed to saving a billion dollars every year—and year on year, that is an enormous figure. When you consider that a billion dollars will build you a brand new teaching hospital in Australia, or that it costs $150 million to build a school, saving a billion dollars year on year is something that all Australians should welcome. I am struggling to understand why those opposite do not. These repeal days will become a regular feature of this government's program, and it must continue to be in the future. The Productivity Commission has shown us what is possible by identifying $12 billion of potential savings in red and green tape reductions. It will be a feature of this government's legislative agenda to mine as many of those savings as we can.
We are also determined to embed the cultural changes necessary to make red and green tape reductions the new normal. Ministers have to meet targets in this area, which are considered one measure of their success. Public servants must give due regard to the regulatory impact of policy proposals and draft legislation. As a former senior public servant I can say that when you put that cabinet submission up, and you give due considerations to what savings can be accrued, then good evidence-based decision making results.
We are absolutely committed to turning the tide on regulation, which those opposite never did. Former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd promised a one-off policy that came to nothing. In fact, contrary to what he promised, there were 21,000 new or amended regulations under Labor. That was not only an abrogation of Labor's promise to the Australian people, because former Prime Minister Rudd promised that policy to them, but it was also an abrogation of their responsibility as a government. As a consequence we have plummeted down the international rankings, and we have heard many speakers on this debate who have told us how far we have dropped—from 68th in the world, about the middle of the pack, to 128th.
What that means is that regulation is clogging up the business landscape, enmeshing those who seek to invest. I know that people often talk about business power. The greatest power of business is its power to invest or disinvest. Every time we remove a regulatory obstacle to that investment we are helping our economy and helping our nation's future prosperity. Our efforts in this regard have met with approval.
I have been watching those opposite throughout the day, and I have heard their comments that these are empty actions. Perhaps they should explain those actions to some of the people in my home state of Tasmania. I have spent much time in recent months talking to them—the businesses, the peak bodies, and the community organisations—about this issue. The examples they have provided to me about excessive or redundant green and red tape have been fed into our committee process, and ably incorporated by the member for Kooyong, wherever appropriate. As The Examiner newspaper reported on 19 March:
The immediate, direct benefit from removal of regulatory obstacles will be considerable, in the region of $10 million for Tasmania.
I believe that as we strip away ever more obstacles from the system, the longer term benefit will be much higher in terms of new investment. Put simply, fewer forms and more reforms means less costs and more jobs. It is a very simple proposition and I for one an staggered that during six years of Labor government they could not understand that simple proposition.
Earlier today the member for Blaxland dismissed the measures in this bill as 'a clean-up exercise'. He should reflect on what businesses, industry representatives and not-for-profit organisations in my electorate of Bass are telling me. Their view is diametrically opposed to the member for Blaxland.
The Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry put out a media release yesterday that welcomed the red tape repeal bill. In that media release they called it:
…a breath of fresh air for businesses big and small
So, far and away from the sort of commentary we have been hearing from those opposite, the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry thinks it is a great thing for business in Northern Tasmania. In his contribution to this debate we heard the member for Lyons talk about the head of the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association, who in a newsletter this morning also welcomed this repeal bill. I thank the Tasmanian Chamber of Commerce and Industry for referring to my, 'inclusive approach' in engaging northern Tasmanian businesses to identify red and green tape issues that were causing them problems.
Unlike the member for Blaxland and those opposite, we believe in smaller government. Over the last six years Labor pointed to the number of new regulations they had brought in as somehow being a measure of success. Let me say to the member for Blaxland, and his Labor and Greens mates, that this is not a quantitative but a qualitative matter. It is not the amount of regulation you bring in that is a measure of your success in government; it is the quality of it. Australia's judgment of Labor's efforts in this regard, on 7 September last year, was damning.
We will act to remove duplication and unnecessary red and green tape. These are actions that are welcomed in Northern Tasmania, throughout the rest of Tasmania, and throughout the rest of this country, and I commend the bill to the House.
No comments