Andrew Nikolic (Bass, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

This is the second time in two days I have had the pleasure to speak about the government's deregulation agenda. There are very few speakers on the opposite side and I think the reason for that is obvious. That reason is that it reveals Labor's culpability when it comes to the regulation that they imposed on Australia during their six years in government. Those opposite, despite the comments by the member for Fraser, know deep in their hearts how badly they have affected the productive capacity of our economy with binding coils of regulation—python-like, squeezing the life out of the hardworking businesses of Australia.

Labor cannot defend the indefensible, although they are certainly building a track record of doing exactly that. They are intent on bringing back the carbon tax and the mining tax and on changing immigration policy. Judging from the cavalcade of unaffordable promises they have made in opposition over just the last 12 months, they are intent on returning to the unsustainable spending practices that have robbed Australia of its economic freedom of action.

People must be scratching their heads about how it is possible, with a record like that achieved by the Labor and Labor-Greens governments from 2007 to 2013, that the member for Fraser can stand up in this House and talk about fairness and about 'well-understood' government responsibilities. How can he stand up and talk about the fiscal and economic responsibilities of government given the record they achieved in just six years? They gave us nearly $200 billion of achieved deficits, $123 billion of deficits projected across the forward estimates and peak debt rising to two-thirds of a trillion dollars—$667 billion or $667,000 million, whichever way you like to say it, is an obscene amount of money to have borrowed in six years. The member for Fraser stands up here and talks about fairness. How is it being fair to the Australian people and future generations to not only ruin Australia's economic freedom of action—our capacity to respond to another event like the global financial crisis—but to compound that problem by blocking measures in the Senate and elsewhere that would allow us to address the effects of their six years in government?

We are here to talk about deregulation. The member for Fraser called it a stunt and a whole range of other pejorative terms. What a contrast we have seen between just the first year of this government and the first year of the Rudd government in 2008. In 2008, I was both a senior Army officer and an acting senior public servant in one of our big national security agencies, so I got to see firsthand the intention of Rudd Labor when it first came into government—Mr Rudd's expansive promise that for every new regulation that came onto the statute books he would take one regulation off the statute books. It was commonly called the 'one on, one off' rule. Who would disagree with that? What a sensible thing to do! It is sensible policymaking to ensure that the regulatory impact of your policies is fully considered in cabinet submissions—that wherever possible we take away those binding coils of legislation and regulation that impede the productive capacity of our businesses.

The problem, though, was that that laudable undertaking was never delivered upon. As with so many of their policies, Labor were long on promise and short on delivery. The member for Fraser talked about how 'good government is about cleaning up the statute books'. I know that the member for Fraser has authored many books that he would probably like to clean up today—they are regularly mentioned in this place—but how can he say good government is about cleaning up the statute books when the net result of six years of Labor and Labor-Greens government was 21,000 new regulations? They did not discriminate either: those binding coils of regulation slithered even tighter, taking the very breath out of efficiency, productivity and investment.

In the five financial years from mid-2007 until mid-2012, multifactor productivity across Australia declined by three per cent. So bad was our performance that, when the Economist Intelligence Unit ranked 51 countries for productivity growth, Australia came in second last, just in front of Botswana. That is the effect that was achieved by those opposite in six years of government. The Reserve Bank governor, Glenn Stevens, has pointed out how vital improvements in this area are. He said this about improving productivity:

Improving productivity growth is just about the sole source of improving living standards …

He drew that linkage between binding coils of regulation, productivity and the living standards of everyday Australians, and he is absolutely right.

In my home state of Tasmania it is a persistent message from business owners, chambers of commerce and numerous other stakeholders that reinforces what a red-hot-button issue this is. The member for Fraser stood up here and—I take offence at this, Deputy Speaker—he spoke in pejorative terms about the team that I am a member of, a team that is led by the member for Kooyong, who by any measure has delivered well beyond his brief when it comes to deregulation. We have the member for Ryan, who is here, and other members like the member for Pearce, the member for Hindmarsh and the member for Reid, who spoke earlier. We go up and we sit with the member for Kooyong, and we take forward problems that really matter in our communities. At two repeal days now, we have come forward and said, 'Here is our response to those problems,' delivering $2.1 billion in productivity improvements, deregulation and legislation improvements. That is not something that you should scoff at, those opposite. And the member for Fraser comes in here and says it is some sort of stunt! These things are making a meaningful difference in the lives of people in my community.

The Treasury Legislation Amendment (Repeal Day) Bill 2014 contains a number of key features, and I will speak to some of those now. It repeals pay slip reporting provisions in the superannuation law that would have increased the regulatory burden on employers beyond that which is currently imposed by the Fair Work regulation. It simplifies the taxation laws by removing inoperative provisions, consolidating duplicated provisions and moving longstanding regulations into the primary law. It reduces the regulatory burden on the associates of individuals who are seeking to obtain a shareholding of more than 15 per cent in certain financial sector companies. It rewrites the definition of 'Australia' into a single location in the tax law for use across all the tax laws in a simple and coherent form.

The member for Reid remarked on this matter of the definition of Australia. For me, the most important thing is to make sure that we do not leave Tasmania off the map. The three members in this House from Tasmania are making sure that they are never forgotten when the map of Australia is drawn.

In some of the other provisions in this bill, the government is providing certainty for employers that they do not need to be preparing for significant changes to their pay slip software in respect of superannuation reporting. We will do this by repealing duplicative provisions from the superannuation law that prescribe additional information on employee pay slips on superannuation contributions. Labor had intended that these regulations would be made, specifying that employers had to report on pay slips the amount of superannuation contributions and the date on which the employer expects to pay them. But, as I said earlier in my speech, on this issue, like so many other policy matters, Labor was long on promise but short on delivery and never made these regulations, so we are going to tidy that small matter up in this bill.

Importantly, this measure will not affect the information employees currently receive on superannuation contributions on their pay slip. Under the Fair Work Act, employers are already required to at least report details of employee superannuation entitlements that accrued during the pay period on an employee's pay slip. If employers were required to report actual contributions and payment dates, they would need to invest in major upgrades to their software, and the benefit for employees would be marginal at best. A lot of what we do is about cost benefit. It is about accepting a little bit of risk so that we do not impose unnecessary and additional cost on those who are making a living, who are adding to the productive capacity of our country.

Most employers pay their superannuation. Even if reporting actual superannuation contributions on pay slips were mandated, employers who did not comply with their superannuation requirements would be unlikely to disclose this on pay slips, so what is the point? I note that 70 per cent of employees who do not receive their superannuation entitlement from their employer, as the member for Reid said, do not actually make a complaint to the ATO until after they have left the employer, so changing the information on superannuation contributions required to be reported on pay slips is unlikely to change that.

It is also important to note that the ATO already investigate every complaint received about unpaid super by that small number of employers who do the wrong thing. Their risk analysis work allows the ATO to target actions against high-risk industries and employers. But, as I said, the vast majority do the right thing and pay their staff their super entitlements. In 2014, as we know, employees increasingly can typically check online, via their super fund, whether their employer is doing the right thing. So the mechanical, handraulic need for this measure is certainly reduced.

We are going to consolidate and repeal some tax provisions in this bill. We are going to simplify the taxation law by consolidating duplicated taxation admin provisions contained in various taxation acts into a single location in the act. We are also going to repeal spent or redundant taxation laws, such as the older harsh penalty regimes, and move longstanding regulations into the primary law. Overall, the changes will result in a material reduction in the size of the taxation laws, with one or two sections replacing in excess of 50 provisions. Removing inoperative provisions, consolidating duplicated provisions and moving longstanding regulations into the primary law do not alter any of the current tax policies. However, it does make the tax law easier to use and easier to comply with—and I say hooray to that. Tidying up our tax laws in line with good legislative practice, contrary to what the member for Fraser said, is an important part of the care and maintenance of our tax system.

Another measure in this bill removes an unnecessary burden on the associates of a person, for example a person's partner, relative or related company, who is seeking approval for a shareholding of greater than 15 per cent in certain financial sector companies, like banks and insurance companies. This approval requirement applies to an associate even where the associate has no actual shareholding in the company. The measure removes the technical legislative trap that imposes an unnecessary legislative and regulatory burden. Importantly, this change in no way compromises our ability to examine a shareholder's controlling interest. Associates with a shareholding are still required to be considered as part of the main applicant's shareholding to determine if they need to seek approval from the Treasurer for that shareholding. In addition, the Treasurer retains authority to block shareholdings where practical control can be asserted by an associate and the Treasurer is satisfied that it is in the national interest that the shareholding be divested.

Earlier I talked about a team led by the member for Kooyong, with some of the members here present as part of that team, doing what I consider to be good work twice a year that will continue in the future. These repeal days are making a meaningful difference in relation to that binding regulation in Australia at the moment. But that is only part of the equation. Every portfolio minister has to search for and come up with red-tape reduction measures, and in relation to this bill the Treasurer had done exactly that. I congratulate the Treasurer for delivering on part of that deregulation agenda that is so important to the future multifactor productivity of our country.

This bill takes another step towards achieving a single Income Tax Assessment Act for Australia. It reinforces the government's resolve to implement our vital deregulation agenda, to strip away the binding coils of as much red tape as possible in our community and to help Australians more easily navigate their way efficiently through legislation and regulation. It is one contribution to this government's bonfire of bureaucracy, but an important step, nevertheless, on the long road to sensible economic reform. I commend the bill to the House.

See this speech in context