Craig Laundy (Reid, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

I say 'hear, hear,' to that too, Member for Kooyong. One particular area of note in which we are achieving savings for Australian companies is our competitiveness agenda, where we have streamlined regulatory arrangements. Earlier this year I met with a range of industry representatives from the hygiene and cosmetics industry, and heard case after case of regulatory overlap, inefficiency, pointless bureaucracy, and duplication.

And I will give you an example—I have said this in this House before—NICNAS, the TGA and APVMA cross three ministerial portfolios. Navigating products through those three portfolios was not only at the point of having ground to a halt, there was the absurd situation where a cosmetics company wanted to put some rolled oats into a pack to release for kids as a Christmas promotion. They were notified by NICNAS that it was, under their definitions, a chemical that could not be dispensed to children. Rolled oats? I don't know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker Vasta—I know you have a young family—but my kids live on rolled oats, especially in winter.

This cross-ministerial portfolio—and bodies like NICNAS, TGA and APVMA, that operate off budget, that are a cost-recovery model—that is the stuff we are talking about here. That is what the member for Watson has missed completely. I notice he did not mention the one-stop shop for environmental approvals. I heard the member for Kooyong say $426 million in compliance costs—but, thinking as a businessman thinks, here is the kicker: it is estimated that we will gain $120 billion to the GDP of the economy over the next 12 years as a result.

One example the Prime Minister used last week was Cochlear. The member for Kooyong and I have spoken of this. Cochlear is very close to my family's heart for personal reasons. It is an organisation that I have spoken about prior in this place. We have changed the regulation to allow Cochlear to use the internationally recognised European Union certification—isn't that a mouthful—and avoid having to go through another certification process here in Australia. This means thousands of people will be able to access their devices up to a year earlier than they would been able to. These significant life-changing devices count, take it from me, on a personal level. To give you a local example, I met a gentleman in my electorate who closed his factory. It was too late; we could not save him, Member for Kooyong. He told me anecdotally that he has relocated his business and 22 jobs to New Zealand. Why? Because the cost of bringing chemicals into this country was prohibitive, and it was cheaper to do it in New Zealand. We change that today. Unfortunately for this gentleman and for the 22 Australians that lost their job it was too late, but it is not too late, looking forward, to ensure that this does not happen again.

While I applaud the Prime Minister and the parliamentary secretary for their work in this space, I cannot help but think to myself that there is so much more to do. I am not just talking about repealing unnecessary regulations and easing the burden of red tape for Australian business, as important as that is. In a week where we are challenging all in this place to have a mature and sensible debate about the future of our Federation, I believe what lies at the heart of this bill has been in fact a major failing of our Federation. I spoke in my maiden speech of the fact that with six states, two territories and a federal government, this country is like a business with nine head offices. When you add the 564 local governments across Australia, the problem becomes magnified in a way that is unsustainable and must be addressed.

At all three levels of government we are lacking people that come from a small and family business background—people who have a commercial understanding of what red tape looks like because they battle with it every day of their business life. They understand that every business in this country has two sides to their profit and loss statement, revenue and expenses, and that when revenue is soft the management of expenses becomes even more vital. Red tape has a direct impact on the expense side of every business in Australia. When you multiply the impact through each level of government it results in a dramatic increase in expenses and an equally dramatic decrease in business profits. In my mind, this is where the most massive failure of the past 113 years of our Federation lies.

We should not only have a mature and rational debate but also we must act. We must chance our mindset. Today, with my background in family business, I want to attempt to add to this debate in a way that I believe has been missing until today. What I am hoping to see is an understanding in government no matter federal, state or local that we are more than law makers and regulators—and here is the key—we are business partners. The past 113 years has focused far too heavily on the regulatory mentality without looking at the actions we take in this place through the eyes of a business partner, a partner who works to promote business and the enterprising spirit of Australians, rather than a government whose work all too often restrains Australian business.

Through our corporate tax system we take between 30c and 49c of every dollar of profit a business makes, depending on ownership structure. I cannot stress this enough: we are not simply regulators and legislators; we are stakeholders in the profitability of every business that calls Australia home.

To put the $94 billion in some context, if that is a company structure, a third is ours. The $94 billion of costs we are imposing takes $94 billion from business profitability in this country and we get between 30c and 49c in the dollar—to relate it back to the Deloitte Access Economics report released this morning. At this stage in our fiscal process we need to make sure that revenue through taxation is as high as it can be. We must change our thinking to be more than regulators. We are business partners. Rather than just legislators, we are stakeholders.

I am talking about cultural change, Member for Kooyong. In my maiden speech I challenged the ministers in this government to run their departments as you would run a business—lean and efficient. But, in saying that, I was short-sighted—as short-sighted as those that have come before me. Yes, ministers must lead from the front and promote this commercial mentality, but we must also work to encourage their departments to think like they are both regulators and stakeholders. It is the same challenge for them that it is for us. What I am trying to promote here is a complete change in culture. Ministers must continue to challenge their departments to streamline existing regulation and introduce future regulation in a way which makes the cost of complying as minimal as possible, so that profit can be as large as possible and so can our share.

We must have a mindset change across this entire parliament and look at the challenges ahead of the Australian economy with a more commercial approach. I believe it is vital for the Prime Minister to make these issues front and centre of COAG discussions. It should be a priority at the most senior levels of this country, as the more profit our businesses make the more revenue we as a government can collect through taxation and the more we can spend on the states and territories. With a coalition government, that revenue will be spent on large-scale projects that create jobs, improve productivity and promote prosperity throughout the country.

Given the fiscal position we find ourselves in as a nation, there is no doubt we need to address this revenue side of the government as well. But we must be smart about how we increase that revenue. In this respect I congratulate the Prime Minister for undertaking the white paper on reform of Australia's tax system, and I look forward to the discussions ahead in this area. It is time to have a mature and sensible discussion about the future of our Federation, but we cannot do that without pointing out the failings. When the regulatory framework ties up business, adds to their expenses and lowers their profitability to the point of pushing businesses offshore, these issues should be at the core of the debate. In his address last night, the Prime Minister said, 'We can be fans in the stands, we can be armchair critics or we can help to make it happen.' That is the call to arms. I congratulate the parliamentary secretary. That is his call to arms. He has done an outstanding job, and I am honoured to have been involved in this in some small part.

I would like to close with one thought to highlight how important this is. With a World Economic Forum global ranking of 124 out of 148 countries for 'burden of government regulation', it could not be more apparent that these measures today are urgent. They are a start and they need to continue not only for the future of our Federation but also, and much more importantly, for the future of our children.

See this speech in context