Tim Watts (Gellibrand, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Regulatory Powers (Standard Provisions) Bill 2014 in this chamber. The title of this bill may be prosaic—I believe that I am the only speaker on this bill in the Federation Chamber—but the substance of this bill is important and worthy of our consideration.

I rise to support this legislation as the model of how red tape production is really removed from our regulatory system. There is a clear need to address the rapidly expanding size and scale of regulation in Australia. It is true that in recent years the size and scope of this problem has increased significantly. We have had numerous reports detailing the extent of this regulatory burden, such as the Bell report in 1997 and the banks report in 2006. It is a problem that has spanned governments of both political persuasions. Indeed, regulation was projected to rise to 55,000 pages by the end of the noughties in the banks report, a projection based solely on the rate of regulatory growth experienced under the then Howard government.

Dense, complicated regulation has many disadvantages, but above all what is most concerning is the confusion it brings to understanding the law and the associated costs of this confusion to Australian citizens and business. While it is important to have clarity in the articulation of legal rights and obligations, there comes a point where too much complexity, too much detail, become a burden. The more regulations that sit on top of acts, the more sections slightly modifying sections in legislation, the more amending acts and consolidating acts affecting the original law, the more difficult it is for ordinary people to understand what their legal obligations are. This is an important point to note when considering red tape. The most invidious aspects of this growth in regulation is not an impact that it has on lawyers—who I am sure are pleased to bill for their services in wading their way through the thickets of red tape—but the impacts that regulation has on business and citizens that is the most invidious. Red tape growth leads to complications not only for small business but also for those seeking civil remedy and those who have been charged with a crime and wish to defend themselves.

It is important that we take steps to ensure that our regulatory system is both precise and effective. We must ensure there is sufficient detail in our regulations for people to know their obligations, but not so much that the burden of complying with the legislation is too onerous.

The previous Labor government devised a bill substantively similar to the one under consideration today as one key method of striking that balance. This bill was originally introduced by my predecessor in Gellibrand, the honourable Nicola Roxon, the then Attorney-General, and lapsed when the previous parliament was prorogued. It was another example of Labor's effective policymaking—a careful, considered approach rather than the big stunts and hollow words of the current Abbott government.

The Labor government appreciated that overregulation was not just a problem for the bean counters; it was also a problem for those seeking access to Australian laws. In 2009 it formed the Access to Justice Task Force with a view to finding out how to make Commonwealth laws more accessible. The task force consulted widely before releasing its final report in September 2009. In this report, titled Strategic framework for access to justice, it recommended that the government focus upon developing clear rules under strict guidelines.

But the government did not rush to introduce legislation to implement this report and claim a quick victory for the anti-regulation zealots. The Attorney-General's Department worked with the Office of Parliamentary Council to develop a set of detailed laws aimed at making our legal system clearer. The government also successfully introduced other changes to our regulatory system, including the Acts Interpretation Amendment Act 2011, Parliamentary Counsel and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2012, and the Statute Law Revision Act 2012. It was under this in-depth review that the bill under consideration today was first drafted. It replaces the variety of regulatory regimes available to regulatory agencies with one regime outlining specific regulatory functions. This allows for clarity for both regulatory agencies and the Australian people, as it is easy to figure out which regulatory regime applies to their situation.

In case of any confusion over interpretation of these provisions, the bill is subject to a Drafting Direction from the First Parliamentary Counsel. This will ensure all future legislation drafted under these provisions is in line with the First Parliamentary Counsel's direction. In addition, the changes that the bill introduces will be implemented in three careful stages.

The bill's operation is also carefully delineated. The relevant provisions of the act must be expressly applied, and all other important information must be specified to activate the bill's provisions. In addition, the powers provided to a regulatory agency under the bill will only be available if authorised by the agency's parent legislation.

So we have a bill that greatly simplifies our current regulatory regimes and makes it very clear when specific situations apply. The bill before us today is a model of effective statutory drafting, as can be expected from such a careful policy process. Indeed, the parliamentary note on the initial bill written back in 2012 could not hide its praise for how effectively the bill had been drafted, stating:

From a technical perspective, this Bill is difficult to fault.

The provisions are logical, clear and have a simplified outline at the beginning of each part to assist a person who may be entirely unfamiliar with monitoring, investigation or enforcement regimes.

It is also a bill with teeth, which will result in a significant decrease in the rising amounts of regulation that we see today. It is estimated that the reforms in this bill could reduce the size of a new Commonwealth act by up to 80 pages. It will also avoid unnecessary duplication and inconsistency across different regulatory regimes. We will see shorter, more precise regulation that is easier for the public to understand, reducing the burden on small business and making it easier for people to understand their legal obligations. It is the end result of a smooth policy process that will deliver the best for the Australian people.

In contrast, the Abbott government's commitment to reducing regulatory red tape has until now been nothing but hot air and empty rhetoric. We have seen this on the much-feted red-tape repeal day, which was a triumph of style over substance and ultimately had very little impact on the everyday lives of the Australian people. The Abbott government certainly spent a lot of time touting their response to the problems of rising regulation. They had government websites dedicated to this bold new government initiative. They had glossy government magazines emblazoned with a pair of scissors and flashy dotted red lines. This was the member for Kooyong's proudest moment. They even gave the day a name. That is an honour they did not even bestow on today, the day that legislation was introduced into parliament to repeal the carbon tax—that supposed terror currently savaging Australian society, wiping entire cities off the map and inflicting hundred-dollar roasts on unsuspecting families in National Party electorates!

Yet, when you looked beyond the hollow marketing gumph of repeal day, there was little of substance done to address the burden of regulation in everyday Australians' lives. There were bills filled with the repeal of legislation that had lapsed 50 years ago and bills that renumbered sections of acts and removed headings. And let us not forget those all-important bills changing the word 'facsimile' to 'fax' and 'e-mail' to 'email'. I know that Australians slept more soundly in their beds at night knowing that their legislation was free of those dangerous grammatical inconsistencies! However, it may well have freed up hordes of grammar nazis to begin second-guessing the written work of Australians in other areas of the economy, so—who knows?—repeal day may well have been a productivity wash. But ultimately there was very little benefit from all of this flash and style for the Australian people.

This is hardly surprising considering that red-tape repeal day was scheduled just six months into the Abbott government's term. The Abbott government did not convene a task force to look at regulation or commission a report that enabled the views of industry to be properly ventilated and contested. By setting the 19 March repeal day, any consultation with interest groups would have been severely rushed. In this, we see evidence of the trademark Abbott approach to policy making: announce an initiative without consulting outside your inner circle; wait for the Australian public to stop scratching their heads, and then explain what you are doing again; prepare your three-word slogan or perhaps, in this case, just a two-word slogan, depending on the verdict of the hyphen pedants who were set to work on the repeal day bills; curb any internal dissent suggesting that the articulated policy makes absolutely no sense or is contrary to the fundamental values of the coalition parties; and then rinse and repeat. This may result in a couple of good news stories for the Abbott government in the short term, but it does not result in an effective long-term response to the problems currently facing our society, problems like the growth of red tape in our society.

The Abbott government process for red-tape repeal day can be compared to the extensive consultation and modelling that the bill under consideration today underwent, and the difference is remarkable. Unlike the bill before the House, it is clear that the red-tape repeal day was the response of a government that can think only in headlines and not in policy solutions for the Australian people. It was another example of the Abbott government's inability to transition from a three-word opposition to an adult government: a government that realises that the rise in regulation is a long-term, complex problem that deserves a long-term, considered response and a government that attempts to address the problem with considered, comprehensive policy solutions rather than empty rhetoric and cheap stunts.

The bill before the House is a worthy measure to reduce the growth of red tape in Australia. Given that it was developed by the previous Labor government, it may be some time before we see another of its kind before this House.

See this speech in context