Paul Fletcher (Bradfield, Liberal Party, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications) Share this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to speak on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring) Bill 2014. The measures in this bill will have a significant impact on reducing red tape across a range of portfolio areas. In the time available to me, I would like to make three points: firstly, unnecessary red tape is a serious problem facing our nation and our economy; secondly, the Abbott government is determined to reduce red tape; and, thirdly, in the communications sector—for which I have some portfolio responsibility as parliamentary secretary to the Minister for Communications—the minister and I have a strong focus on reducing red tape.

Let's start with the general proposition that red tape is a serious problem in our economy. It is clear that the prevalence of red tape has a negative impact on productivity. If you compare how Australia performs against other nations in the world, in 2014 we ranked 124th out of 148 countries for the burden of government regulation in the World Competitiveness Index. The cost of doing business in Australia relative to other nations is too high—simply too high. The Productivity Commission, for example, estimates that regulatory compliance costs could amount to as much as four per cent of Australia's GDP—that is a staggering number.

And I would like to acknowledge here the outstanding work done while the coalition was in opposition by our red-tape reduction task force, chaired by Senator Arthur Sinodinos, with deputy chairs Kelly O'Dwyer, the member for Higgins, and Senator David Bushby. In particular, I would like to quote from something that Senator Sinodinos said in a speech in 2012:

Unnecessary red tape is a contributing factor to Australia's productivity challenge. The Productivity Commission estimates that reducing red tape will boost national GDP by $12 billion a year. Across industry, it's believed red tape accounts on average for four per cent of business costs.

The second reason why red tape is a serious problem is its tendency to continue to grow. If government does not take decisive action the unfortunate reality is that red tape tends to be ever expanding. Reporting obligations which are in place and which have been put there for all the best reasons tend to grow and grow and grow. The great virtue of the promise that this government made—or that the coalition made when in opposition and that we are implementing now that we are in government—to have two repeal days a year is that you have a systematic and continuing focus on the growth of regulation and opportunities to remove regulation—regulation that has outlived its usefulness or regulation, the cost of which exceeds the benefit.

The need for this action in relation to regulation and in relation to red tape is only increased because we have the misfortune of succeeding a government in the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government which showed an extraordinary enthusiasm for adding regulatory burden to the Australian economy. The Labor government—the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd government—added over 21,000 new regulations and repealed 105, notwithstanding the promise made by the former Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, in 2007 that his government would have a 'one regulation in, one regulation out' policy. That was a promise that was never honoured.

And there is plenty of evidence of the pressure that this was imposing on participants in the economy. Let me refer you, for example, to the October 2012 National Red Tape Survey conducted by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. This was a survey of 870 businesses across all states and territories, which found that 73 per cent of businesses believed that the overall regulatory compliance burden had increased in the previous two years and that 60 per cent of businesses spent more than $5,000 per annum directly on costs related to regulatory requirements. And there is a long and depressing list of regulatory burdens that were in place at the time that the previous government had completed its handiwork—for example, the national child care law of 180 pages plus an additional 345 pages of regulations and 1,149 pages of guidelines. There was the reality that universities typically have regulatory compliance departments with 15, 20 or more staff dedicated to ensuring compliance with over 100 separate state and federal acts. In Indigenous service delivery, as at the time that the previous government left office, there were more than 200 Indigenous related programs administered by 17 Commonwealth agencies. Each program had its own application form and processes. And there is the example from the resources sector of one particular project which required 4,000 meetings before approval was granted and on which 12,000 state and 300 Commonwealth conditions were ultimately placed.

So under the previous government we had a very enthusiastic set of regulators who added substantial new regulatory burdens on a continuing basis every day they turned up for work. The previous speaker, the member for Oxley, spoke about turning up for work. There is no doubt that the previous government saw its role as being to increase regulation. Indeed, the previous Manager of Government Business, the member for Grayndler, used to enjoy telling the House how many pieces of legislation had been passed, because the only metric that he seemed to think was important was how many new laws and how much additional regulatory burden had come into force. On this side of the House we take a different perspective. We want to carefully look at the laws and regulations that are in place and ask, 'Are they still fit for purpose? Are they still delivering benefits which exceed their costs?'

That brings me to the second proposition that I want to put today: the determination of the Abbott government to reduce red tape; to have a process which acts as a corrective to the institutional factors which drive red tape to increase. The approach that we have taken has been warmly welcomed by many sectors of the community. But I want to quote particularly somebody from the non-profit sector—the community sector. Tony Nicholson, the executive director of the Brotherhood of St Laurence said, 'We warmly welcome the government's red-tape reduction agenda. Streamlining our reporting and compliance requirements makes a real difference as it frees up resources to be directed towards helping disadvantaged young families.'

I think that is a very powerful reminder, in the context of that particular organisation's mission, that time and resources which are allocated to meeting compliance requirements and reporting requirements are time and resources which are diverted from the core mission of any organisation which is subject to regulation. That is something those on the opposite side are very happy to ignore but it is something that those on this side of the parliament are acutely conscious of.

That is one reason why in coming to government we have set a very aggressive target in terms of the dollar value of the savings we want to deliver in reduction in compliance costs. Pleasingly, we are at a point where we have reached a net reduction of over $2 billion in compliance costs so far. The bill before the House today continues this work by removing almost 1,000 pieces and some 7,200 pages of legislation and regulation. And it builds on the work of the first repeal day in March of this year, when over 10,000 pieces and 50,000 pages of legislation and regulation and over $700 million of compliance costs were removed.

Thirdly, I would like to turn to some of the specific initiatives in the communications sector, where we are taking very seriously the importance of working to identify items of regulation which have served their purpose and are no longer required and where there is a capacity to remove that regulation and deliver benefit to industry participants and to consumers. That is of particular importance when you have a sector like the communications sector which is very heavily regulated and which is changing very quickly. As the technology is evolving at a rapid rate there are multiple instances of regulatory provisions which are no longer fit for purpose. They simply deal with, for example, industry practices or technologies which are no longer used. There is good potential to identify deregulatory initiatives in the communications sector and that has been the focus of the Minister for Communications and myself as his parliamentary secretary.

I want to highlight one set of measures in the legislation before the House this morning which is of importance in this general deregulatory thrust in the communications portfolio. Throughout the legislation in the portfolio there are extensive and prescriptive requirements in relation to consultation. For example, section 87A(9) of the Broadcasting Services Act requires the Australian Communications and Media Authority to seek public comment before imposing, varying or revoking conditions of a community TV license. Section 126 of the Broadcasting Services Act requires the Australian Communications and Media Authority to seek public comment before determining, varying or revoking a program standard under part 9 of the act. There are similar provisions in the Interactive Gambling Act, the Radiocommunications Act and the Telecommunications Act—all of them quite prescriptive and detailed. But this is the point: at the same time there is a general regime applicable to all regulators, including the Australian Communications and Media Authority and other agencies within the communications portfolio. Section 17 of the Legislative Instruments Act requires that a rule maker, subject to limited exceptions must be satisfied that appropriate and reasonably practicable consultation has been undertaken prior to making a legislative instrument. That is a good principle. Of course, there ought to be reasonable and appropriate consultation before a legislative instrument is made. But when that principle is in place and has the force of law and applies as a general principle across the activities of all regulators and all rule makers, it really does cause you to ask the question: why do we additionally have a series of specific provisions which do exactly the same thing? One of the changes contained in the bills before the House this morning is to remove a series of provisions in the communications portfolio pieces of legislation which set out specific consultation requirements on the basis that the general requirement to consult, in section 17 of the Legislative Instruments Act, will remain in place.

I want to emphasise that there is not going to be any variance of the general principle of the importance of consultation, but that duplication will be removed and potentially there will be more flexibility in the mode of consultation, provided it meets that overriding test of being appropriate and reasonably practicable.

The measures in the bills with regard to the communications portfolio are important ones and they complement other measures that we are taking as part of this second repeal day. For example, we are moving to a one-time sign-up system for the Do Not Call Register. The importance of this is that there are some nine million telephone numbers on the Do Not Call Register and it would hitherto have been a requirement, had we not made this change, that all of those people who are on the register would have been required to renew their registration, because there was a time limit on the previous status of having your number on the register. We have removed that requirement and that reflects the fact that millions of people have exercised a choice; they have made a conscious choice and we have removed the requirement for them to have to reregister. That is going to save a lot of time and money.

Another reform which reduces red tape in the communications portfolio is a relaxation of the requirements applying to so-called battery backup for the National Broadband Network. Under the previous government's approach, consumers were required to have a battery backup system installed, regardless of their desire or need to have one. It was decreed by the then minister, Senator Conroy. He knew best and all consumers needed to have a battery backup system. Of course, many consumers may not want or need one. Many have indicated that they would be happy to rely upon their mobile phone connection for voice services in the event of a power failure. Indeed, the statistics show that only 75 per cent of Australian adults had a fixed line in the home as at December 2013. In other words, a quarter of Australians today have made an active choice to rely on their mobile phones for voice services—including, of course, in an emergency. Our approach is very different to the centralised Conrovian compulsion which characterised the previous government. I am pleased to say that on the question of battery backup, the fresh daylight of choice and freedom is rising and banishing the grim and leaden darkness of Conrovia. We are enabling informed choices on battery backup installations, leading to an annual saving estimated at over $20 million in compliance costs.

The coalition government is seizing the opportunity to reduce the regulatory cost of business across many sectors, including the communications sector. Let's remember why we are doing it: as a means to stimulate business activity, economic growth and jobs.

See this speech in context