Bernie Ripoll (Oxley, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader for Small Business) Share this | Hansard source

It gives me absolutely no pleasure whatsoever to speak on this bill, because this bill abolishes the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee, CAMAC, which is a longstanding committee that is efficient, thorough and has provided essential advice and service to all governments and the community for a very, very long time. It plays an integral and critical role in the proper functioning of our markets and corporations.

I cannot believe that this bill is before us. It beggars belief. It is just another example of the government shooting itself in the foot—not understanding its role, not understanding the importance of markets, and not understanding the work that this particular committee does and how it does that work. This is a perfect example of a government that has no idea about itself, about its own agenda, about the economy, about Australians, about how markets work or about efficiency. This is a government that is rolling from one crisis to another, and this is a perfect example of that.

This bill abolishes the Corporations and Markets Advisory Committee for no good reason. There is not one good reason for abolishing that very, very fine committee, made up of quality Australians, who provide, almost on a voluntary basis, a critical advisory service to the government. Governments—previous governments, this government and other governments; not only governments but also the community—have made enormous use of and benefited greatly from the work that is being done. To get rid of this committee really does beggar belief.

I will be very interested to hear what government members have to say in defence of why they would want to get rid of this committee that provides them with quality advice—that frank and fearless, quality, nonpartisan, non-political advice that is so essential to decision making when it comes to very important issues about our businesses in this country—small business, big business, small and medium enterprises and corporations—and the way markets work and the way that we interact with them.

The explanatory memorandum has some explanation, though. It explains and states that the cessation of CAMAC is expected to have a positive impact. I take that word with some irony, because there is nothing positive about abolishing CAMAC. It says it has a positive impact on the fiscal balance of $2.8 million—that is it: $2.8 million—and on the underlying cash balance of $3.1 million over the forward estimates. I am not talking about per year; I am talking about over the next four years. So for much less than $1 million a year we have a fantastic committee, made up of quality, eminent Australians, who work almost voluntarily in the time that they give of their own knowledge, their own intellect and they work much, much beyond anything that the committee requires. To have this government for a few measly coins—this number, this so-called saving of $3.1 million over the forward estimates, would barely register in budgetary terms on any fiscal position of the government or this country.

Labor absolutely opposes the abolition of CAMAC. CAMAC, as I have said, is an apolitical committee. It is made up of corporate and business experts who have been a very, very valuable resource to government for many years. In fact, when the former parliamentary secretary to the Treasurer, the member for Moncrieff, introduced the bill to the House he said:

This bill fulfils a commitment … to achieve a smaller and more rational government footprint.

I do not see how making things smaller by getting rid of a key advisory body actually helps anybody. I do not think it really can help the government's budgetary position. There is nothing rational about it either because it does not achieve the government's own goals. Maybe the government does not understand what it is here for. Maybe the government does not have a program and an agenda. Maybe the government does not know why it is in government. Maybe it is just in government because it thinks that winning power and winning government and sitting on that side of the House is it—that is the goal and the goal has been achieved and it is just about staying there as long as possible rather than looking at what things it can do for the country.

The former parliamentary secretary to the Treasurer said it 'fulfils a commitment', but a commitment to whom? The question would be to whom is the commitment to have a smaller footprint, a smaller government. I do not know to whom. I will ask that question many, many times—to whom does this fulfil a commitment? It would not be the business community, because the business community would have an expectation, if anything, that the government would enhance CAMAC because of the great work it does not that it would get rid of it completely.

This commitment does not have a rationale from our markets because our markets rely on good, efficient processes and good information. When there are reviews to be done or critical issues that need to be debated in this place, who do we turn to? We turn to CAMAC, because CAMAC has the resources and expertise. When Labor want to seek the advice of business people, the business community of experts, and ask their view and opinion, we turn to CAMAC. But this Liberal government does not need any advice, apparently. When it is faced with critical decisions, who does it turn to? Apparently it is nobody. It turns to itself. It is inward-looking.

We have seen this. We have seen this in the rolling crises that are before the government today. There are things happening with the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, and there is a lack of confidence from his own backbench. We know this in absolute terms because there was a recent poll—not a newspaper poll or phone poll but a poll of the government's own party room—and it emphatically demonstrated that there is no confidence in the Prime Minister. This is just another example of why. Their own people have no confidence in the Prime Minister. Who else would have any confidence in this government when they are getting rid of a key independent advisory body? Getting rid of it would save them such a small and trifling amount that you would barely notice it anywhere. Certainly you would barely notice it in the budget papers compared to the value that it brings.

So rather than treating CAMAC, this expert advisory committee, in a non-political way, by doing this they are actually politicising it. They are politicising this advisory body and the good business people and experts who are on this committee. Somewhere deep in the back of my mind I thought there was a chance or an underlying theme from the Liberals that they are somehow pro-business and pro-market. But I cannot figure out what they stand for. I cannot see it in any of their actions. I cannot see how they are pro-business.

Let me tell you that the business community do not agree with the government on this. The experts do not agree with the government on this. They think the government has got it really wrong. They think the government is making a big mistake. If the government wanted to gain some confidence from the business community it would drop this bill altogether and say, 'Sorry, we have made a mistake here.'

But I think they have a bit of form on this. There is something happening here. I have only picked it up in the last couple of weeks or months—or maybe a bit longer. There is a bit of form from the government and the Prime Minister. They do not like experts. They do not like independent bodies. They do not like business people, for that matter. They do not like anyone who has maybe a different view to theirs, as small a difference as that might be. I think I have it.

Mr Chester interjecting—

You can like me or dislike me; it does not really matter! I think I have worked it out, though. If somebody does not agree with them on something in particular then they get rid of that person if they can. But if it is somebody like the Human Rights Commissioner then they cannot get rid of that person because that person has a mandate for five years. If they cannot get rid of them, what do they do? They vilify, attack, character-assassinate and do everything they can to bring that person or body down. That is what they have done. We have seen that.

The government and the Prime Minister might think that is really clever and that, by character-assassinating or rubbishing an independent authority or people who have more expertise in an area than they do, somehow that puts them in front and they win with the public. I do not think that is right. I can almost understand why the government would go down that path if the Human Rights Commission had a different view to theirs, but in this case here it seems to me that they are just attacking their own people. If we are to believe the government that they support business then we have to ask: why are they getting rid of one of the very, very good-quality advisory bodies that provide the frank and fearless advice that is needed? That is not just something you desire in government; it is actually something you really need.

Let me tell you a little bit about the history of CAMAC, because I think it is important for people to understand. Since 1978 the Commonwealth has had an independent research based reform body focused on corporations and financial markets. It started with the Companies and Securities Law Review Committee and was followed by the Corporations and Securities Advisory Committee and is now known as CAMAC. It changed name in 1989 and in 2002, following the referral of corporations powers from the states.

This is not some trifling little body that we can do without or ignore. CAMAC has produced dozens of reports, too many to list them all here. It is a busy committee. It does a lot of work. If you want to talk about rationales, efficiency and smaller government, this is what delivers it. It is CAMAC that delivers it. The government does not deliver any of it. This is the body that delivers it, and it has done some very, very good work that has led to essential reforms that save consumers money, protects our markets, and provides the efficiency that underpins what we call this great country. If we are going to have good markets then you have to have the right sort of reforms in place. You would want to at least seek some advice—you are not just turning to yourself for advice in these areas.

They have done some great work in terms of continuous disclosure, company restructuring to avoid liquidation, executive remuneration and directors' liability. This is the real red-tape reduction. This is the real work of government. This is the stuff that actually makes a difference on the ground, not that bonfire of red-tape rubbish that we saw from this government when it says it is going to burn 18,000 pages of red-tape. They forgot to tell you that the 18,000 pages-worth are dating back from 1901 and 1905 that nobody had used for about 90 years—some of them were actually blank pages with a line.

See this speech in context