Ed Husic (Chifley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary to the Shadow Treasurer) Share this | Hansard source

It gives me great pleasure to second this amendment, because how much of the nation's fortunes has rested on a hyphen; how much has rested on the removal of a comma? We need to be able to debate this properly. It should be referred to the Federation Chamber. To paraphrase the Manager of Opposition Business: debate it and they will come. Let us see, Member for Kooyong and Parliamentary Secretary, this phalanx of red-tape slashers that you believe will be there ready to debate alongside you. Let us give them the opportunity. Let us give them the opportunity in the Federation Chamber to outline how this spring cleaning with a cotton bud is going to liberate the Australian economy and change the way we operate in this nation.

You claim, Member for Kooyong, that there is a headline target of $2.3 billion. As the Manager of Opposition Business has indicated, the legislation before us is only putting forward $1.8 million of savings that we can identify. Headline targets are great to reach. I would love, at the age of 45, to be an NBA draft pick. That is my headline target. It does not mean I am going to reach it. I can always claim a target and try and claim kudos off that target. But the fact of the matter is that a lot of the stuff you are putting forward does not stack up in the legislation that is being put forward.

You want to talk about compliance costs, and we want to be able to debate it. You want to gag the debate. You want to claim the credit and not allow for the accountability. You want to be able to go out and spruik that you are making all these savings, but you do not want us to be able to test it. You do not want us to be able to go through. As the Manager of Opposition Business has rightly said, put it up in the Federation Chamber. Let us debate it. Let us also work out, because you are so big on reducing the costs of compliance, why it is, for instance, that you are now loading up on the 6,300 petrol stations around the country $800 worth of compliance costs in the changes that you have brought forward on fuel indexation. The party that says that it is about less red tape and lower taxes uses Senate arcana and red tape to increase taxes and will not allow for debate on this.

What we are clearly saying is that we welcome the opportunity to test these claims that have been extended by the Manager of Opposition Business in the amendment he has moved. Quite often what happens here is that it is all hype and less detail and less tangible results. We have seen, for instance, claims that red-tape reduction would deliver benefit and then it does not actually follow through. Where they have cut red tape, we have had to come back and clean it up. The government claimed, for instance, that they would cut red tape, and they cut out the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, only to have to come back, embarrassingly, and fix it up. The red tape that was cut had to be fixed with sticky tape in haste to try to clean up what they had done.

We had, for instance, the argy-bargy over FoFA. They came up with their deal on FoFA and they claimed they were cutting red tape, but they were cutting protections to consumers—and they were happy to see them burnt and lose millions, as we have seen in those terrible cases. With this red-tape cutting that they did, they put this terrible deal on FoFA, only now to see the industry clamouring back and saying, 'We actually need to do more.' They are doing a mea culpa and recognising that they need to strengthen protection.

Again, this is a headline chasing for detail. The detail is never there. But let us test it. Let us give them the chance to debate this. Let us give them the chance to see whether or not these savings are fair dinkum. It is for these reasons that I support the Manager of Opposition Business's amendment to ensure that this is debated in the Federation Chamber.

See this speech in context