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

Yes, he was on the grassy knoll. But, guess who was responsible for trying to create jobs in 2002? It was Tony Abbott. It was the current Prime Minister. He was responsible for it back then. So, when I hear that there is going to be a million new jobs and that there will be a surplus every year—you hear all this rubbish and you think that that is part and parcel of what is before us here. What this bill for the abolition of CAMAC actually does is completely different from what the government says. It says anything. It promises anything. It does not care. A promise a day, a promise an hour—it does not really matter.

If it were only my view, I could understand that people might be cynical. I could understand why government members might get upset and say, 'Well, that's just your view; you're on the other side.' If you have a look around, you will see it is not just one voice. We know that it is not just us saying these things; there are a whole heap of stakeholder groups who have made their views and submissions public. I inform the House that, if you want to take the time to read them, there have been many good comments and submissions made.

I turn, for example, to Professor Ian Ramsay, from the University of Melbourne law school. He was quoted in The Sydney Morning Herald as saying, in relation to the abolition of CAMAC:

"It's very regrettable that for the saving of three salaries a committee that has worked long and hard over decades to basically facilitate business has been cut,'' he said. ''It's been cut with little thought and little understanding of its role.''

That is the problem: little thought and little understanding—no idea. Professor Ramsay also said:

''That's the complete irony of this,'' … ''It cuts directly against the government's own philosophy and position about facilitating business.''

You would have to question that philosophy.

In a letter to Senator Cormann, the Business Law Section of the Law Council of Australia said:

CAMAC has delivered a substantial quantity of first-class reports and discussion papers very economically. … We submit that if CAMAC is abolished, the Government will not be able to secure access to this level of expertise and experience at comparable cost.

They are saying that it will cost more, and that is exactly what will happen. It may save a few coins over here—'Everyone look at the shiny coins; here you go, look at what we're saving'—but then it will cost you three times more somewhere else. Again, there is no thought, no rationale, no purpose. That is what happens when you have no purpose in government other than to stay in government. The only thing I can think of is that they just want to stay there.

In an article by George Durbridge entitled 'CMAC to be abolished', published on the Herbert Smith Freehills lawyers website—not regularly known as supporters of our side—he writes:

If CAMAC did not exist, we would have had to invent it. If it ceases to exist, we will have to reinvent it.

That would cost a lot more, but that is exactly what will happen, because government cannot do without this committee.

In an article on the StartupSmart website, Judith Fox from the Governance Institute of Australia pointed out:

"There’s a lot at stake in losing CAMAC," Fox says. "Corporations and the financial markets are the lynchpin of Australia’s economy. If they do not function efficiently, there will be detrimental consequences for business, investors and the capital markets.

You would think that a Liberal government might just acknowledge or understand that a little, but it is pretty obvious it does not. Maybe it has another agenda or maybe—even worse—it does not have one at all. Judith Fox continued:

Having an expert, research-focused, consultative and independent body like CAMAC to develop and advise the government on best practice policy has made a significant contribution to the strength and efficiency of our corporate and financial institutions. … CAMAC convenes a part-time panel of corporate law luminaries who for all intents and purposes volunteer their time. It is supported by three staff at an annual cost of $1 million," Fox says. "It's a small body that punches well above its weight and delivers economic benefits that greatly outweigh its funding costs, such as our high standards of corporate governance and a stable and efficient environment for corporate activity. These things are easy to take for granted but will be deeply missed when they are gone."

Further, in a letter to Treasury responding to the draft legislation, John Winter, Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Restructuring Insolvency & Turnaround Association, said:

It is the view of ARITA that the abolition of CAMAC is a retrograde move …

ARITA urged the government to reconsider. So would I: reconsider.

Finally, the Australian Institute of Company Directors, in their submission to Treasury, said:

As the Government tries to reduce red tape, we are of the view that the Government's decision to dismantle CAMAC is likely to increase red tape in the long term.

It will actually make matters worse. That is why we do not understand what this government is up to. The submission further states:

Company Directors strongly opposes the abolition of CMAC and we recommend that the proposed abolition not proceed.

The quotes from all these stakeholders set out the concerns and bewilderment of the sector and quite accurately highlight the government's error in abolishing CAMAC. But I do not think we are going to get a turnaround. I do not think this is a government that will think about this in some sort of rational, small-government footprint way. It will go ahead regardless, oblivious to the cost to business, oblivious to the cost of additional red tape and the work it will create in other areas, oblivious to the cost of not listening to that frank and fearless advice and oblivious to the value lost.

The government made a number of arguments to justify abolishing CAMAC, and they are all pretty poor—simple as that. I will be very interested to hear if government members have anything further to say. The main arguments have been about cost and smaller government. As I said earlier, they know the cost of everything but the value of nothing. They have no comprehension of what this means for our markets. They have no comprehension of some of the things that are right now on the table that need to be done. But getting advice, particularly from experts and from the business community, is not high on this Liberal government's priority list, and we see that in a whole range of ways, with a recent newspaper story saying 'big business gives up on Tony Abbott and the government'. I wonder why that is! If small business have not already given up on this government, they will very shortly because they are realising that what this government did was give them the old nudge-nudge, wink-wink, 'We're on your side; it's in the ether somewhere,' while at the same time ripping out of the small business community around $7 billion in direct assistance, efficiency measures and a whole range of other things that Labor did in government to promote small business and make sure that small business—whether it was in the global financial crisis or in other tough economic times—had the support you would expect to keep people working and keep the small business community growing.

Mr Chester interjecting—

The government uses the excuse: 'Well, those were tough years.' Of course they were. Globally, it was very tough for everybody. In Australia we managed to ride that out because Labor took tough decisions; but not one of those tough decisions was to abolish independent advisory committees that actually provide the sort of advice you need in government.

Whether we look at the Law Council of Australia's response to the government's argument or we go over those cost arguments again, it is just a repeat of all the same stuff. It is about cost—a few little dollars here, a few little dollars there.

The government's first argument was that the abolition of CAMAC would streamline the shape of government. I am not sure what shape it thinks it has got and whether we need to streamline it, but you do not get rid of a value-for-money entity—in other words, not get any good advice—in order to streamline. To counter this, of course, the Law Council stated that the abolition of CAMAC will not result in any reduction in duplication, because it is the only body that does this work. There is no other body. If you had three of these, you would go: 'Fair enough, let's merge them. Let's do something.' That is the challenge. Who else will do this? Who else will provide this particular work and advice? Who will provide the sort of assistance that Treasury needs, that ASIC needs and that professional associations need?

I know that some government members will see that ASIC can do this. How? The government has cut ASIC as well. Our regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, has $120 million less. At the same time that we want more from the regulator what does this government do? It says, 'We want you to give us twice as much but we're going to give you half the amount to do it.' Of course ASIC, as the regulator, says that it is up to government to decide what level of funding it will give it as a regulator, but there is a price to be paid for that.

I know this is stirring up a few of the souls opposite, because they know this bites in deep. They know that not everybody out in the community might understand this, because they do not have to deal with CAMAC every day or they may not be in the markets on a daily basis, but I can tell you that is a whole heap of people to whom the Liberals and the Liberal government give the old 'nudge, nudge, wink, wink, we're on your side' who will be looking at these guys and saying, 'Whose side are you really on?' According to everything I can find, every quote, every statement, every review—by eminent people such as the Law Council of Australia, which is not a small, insignificant organisation—is telling the government: 'You're wrong on all counts.' When that happens I think you have a problem. If we look at some other things that the Law Council of Australia has said about abolishing CAMAC:

… in these circumstances it is highly unlikely that there will be any cost saving, unless the task of corporate and market law reform is substantially downgraded or weakened.

That is the view of the Law Council of Australia, but maybe the government just does not care.

The government's final cost reduction argument is that this will ensure greater value for taxpayers. I think I have already made that point: there is no value in doing any of this. But I will go one step further: the question you have to ask is what is the rush on this bill? You would think there were higher priorities. Remember the debt crisis? Apparently it does not exist anymore and it never did. That is a revelation! I thought that was the case anyway. What is the rush? The bill is currently being examined by the Senate Economics Legislation Committee, who are due to issue their report on 16 March. We are just a couple of weeks away from one of the government's committees delivering a report, but they want to abolish the body before the committee delivers its report. Maybe they already know what is in the report. Maybe they already have a view as to what the report is going to say, that CAMAC is a good committee and should be retained. The only rush I can see is to get rid of this before they are given some more advice from people on their side.

What absolutely beggars belief in this is that it is completely antibusiness. This government is antibusiness. It is antimarket. It is anti-efficiency. It will go to any length to get rid of anyone who disagrees with it or produces quality advice, independent advice, fearless and frank advice. We are seeing it in everything it does. We are seeing it in this bill. It should not be supported.

See this speech in context