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

On the day with so much fanfare from the Liberal Party where they cannot decide who should be leading them—and, of course, the Australian people have already decided that it is actually not the leader that is the problem but the whole team—we have these three bills in front of us: the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015, the Amending Acts 1980 to 1989 Repeal Bill 2015 and the Statute Law Revision Bill (No. 2) 2015. These represent the third time this government has made so much fanfare about what would otherwise be just the normal, everyday function of a government. That is why a government gets elected: to do something. What they are doing is no different from what any other government does: doing something. But this government, of course, when it finds it has actually done something, thinks it is so good that it has to tell the whole world repeatedly and make a really big fanfare about it.

What we should be talking about when it comes to lowering regulatory burdens is that it is not a Liberal thing. In fact, it is not even a Labor thing. It is simply what governments should do. It is certainly what Labor did when we were in government. We repealed 16,794 acts and regulations, but we did not make a big deal about it, because we saw it as our duty, our responsibility while we were elected. We did not go around printing a glossy magazine to shop around the country and tell everyone how wonderful we were, but that is exactly what the Liberal Party are doing. I will return to that a little bit later. But we certainly did not produce this glossy magazine, which basically created a whole heap more red tape to tell people that they had been cutting red tape.

The publication that has been produced and the accompanying material, at the time of the introduction of these bills titled the Autumn Repeal Day March 2015, can only be described as an exercise in sheer propaganda. The publication includes deregulation measures since the 2014 spring repeal day; however, the reality of the content of this publication in what this government defines as 'deregulatory measures' is quite disturbing. It was good to hear the member for Herbert. Not too many people could disagree with most of the content of what he said, because it is your ordinary conversation: 'Why can't it just be better? Why can't we just drive through there? At the time that we want to deregulate, we want to keep it safe.' Everyone is on the same page when it comes to those things, but you have actually got to do something about it.

The reason we have regulation for a lot of small businesses and a lot of business in our economy is not only to keep them safe but to make sure we have an economy. In my portfolio area of small business—on page 12 of the government's propaganda tool—has a list of programs they have cut in the industry portfolio that were actually accessed by thousands of small business people across Australia. In the name of deregulation the government goes and cuts away. They say, 'We've cut red tape,' but in actual fact they have cut assistance. They include things like Commercialisation Australia. That is not red tape. That is actually a body designed to help innovators and entrepreneurs in Australia to commercialise, which everyone in the marketplace agrees is what is needed.

What else did they cut from red tape? Investing in Experience—all those things we talk about when we say we should take trades people and others who have a lifetime of experience and help them share it with younger generations. The government decides that that is just red tape and not necessary. There was the National Workforce Development Fund and the Textile, Clothing and Footwear Small Business Program to make sure that those small businesses could transition in a difficult global environment—things that perhaps the Liberal Party just does not quite understand. It talks about China free trade agreements—it talks about a lot of things—but, when it comes to the real, on-the-ground, helping-Australia's small businesses and small business people, it cuts away the services. It diminishes the assistance that is available. It reduces the ability of them to compete. That is what is frightening about what they have done with these so-called—because they are not—'red tape reduction' programs.

What is even worse is that they have cut away innovation capacity programs, workplace English language and literacy programs and the Australian Apprenticeships Access Program. We heard before about apprentices, and of course in any speech you say: 'We like apprentices. We like apprenticeships. We'd like to support them.' Of course I would agree with that, but, when you actually cut the program that does it, I would say there is a real problem there.

It is just not good enough for this government to talk the language. Words are cheap for this government. They say growth is up, even though it is lower than what it was when they came to government. They say they fixed the budget, even though the budget deficit is much, much bigger and government debt is much, much bigger. They say they are creating jobs, when in reality when Labor left office unemployment was 5.7 per cent—too high. Today it is 6.2 or 6.3—way too high. But Tony Abbott just says the words 'stop the boats', 'create jobs' and 'growth' and thinks that, just by saying the words, magically these things happen or people believe it is actually the cas But of course, again, it is not. Creating a glossy brochure to prove your point is not the truth. It does not create jobs, except for perhaps the few people involved in the production of the glossy repeal-day publication.

If the government's definition of reducing compliance costs and banking the savings is to cut small business and industry programs and make it more difficult for people like apprentices and others to stay in work or to get work in the first place then I do not think they are doing a really good job. There are a lot of people who agree with me. Now most small business are starting to wake up to the fact. Certainly industry is and most Australians are. As I started by saying, while the Liberal Party might be in the throes of deciding their leader—because they cannot decide who their leader ought to be—the Australian public have already decided. They do not like any of them. They do not like the team. Forget who they have as a leader; they actually have a problem with their whole team. That is the real problem here. Forget about the fact that investment in skills and training programs—including the National Workforce Development Fund, which was listed on page 12—totalling more than $1 billion was cut by this government. They have cut away at this, and then they wonder why unemployment has gone up. They might ask the question, 'Why is growth down?' Why is unemployment up?' If they are supposedly saving money, why have the debt and deficit gone up? When they came to government they said, 'There is a budget crisis and emergency. Send in the fire brigade.' Why is it that today, when it is much worse, they have turned the fire-engine back? The fire-engine got to the fire, Tony Abbott won the election, but he calls them up and he says, 'Don't worry. The fire's not that important anymore. Let it burn.' And, boy, has it burnt since, and, boy, has it gotten worse.

Growth is down at just two per cent. The Treasurer, Joe Hockey, keeps talking about a magical 'three' number, three per cent, but just saying the number does not create it. Just talking about jobs does not create them. You have to do a bit more than just talk. But at every turn this government has been a jobs destroyer—at every opportunity. There is no point having a bonfire of regulation burning when all you are doing is burning the economy. No jobs were created out of these bills—not one. No growth to the economy was created out of these bills. Not one small percentage of growth was created out of these bills. We all know what happened when the government tried to water down many of the protections, and I am quite sure that no-one from the government wants to be reminded of it. However, the savings attached to those so-called reforms were estimated by this government at $198 million. Never mind that the proposed reforms watered down consumer protections and put at risk lifetime savings, all in the name of compliance savings. The government is quite happy when it talks about saving for itself, for government, or saving for compliance, but it does not talk about saving for consumers or saving for jobs. That does not seem to be as important.

Of course, there is a difference between necessary regulations and unnecessary or redundant regulations, and we will hear that. That will be the mantra from government speakers, and of course that is what all governments should be doing. There is a very large difference, but the problem is that the government do not understand the difference. They do not understand the difference between what is redundant and unnecessary in terms of regulation, what is outdated and no longer applicable and what is there to actually underpin and support our economy and underpin and support jobs.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, when he spoke in this place, referred to one particular measure in the omnibus bill that will result in over $41 million in so-called deregulatory savings. This proposed amendment pertains to the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995. The principal function of the measures in these bills is to remove acts that are spent or redundant. Again I say this is the normal business of government. This is what governments get elected to do. You do not pat yourself on the back for turning up to work every day. This is probably why the Liberal Party and this government have a problem. They think the fact that they even bothered to turn up this morning is actually a badge of honour. They are going to have bills in here congratulating themselves for being in government: 'We want to hand out some awards to ourselves for turning up to work today.' That is not how our economy works, and that is not what happens in the real world or the real market.

We have heard time and time again the global figure that the government use when claiming their amount of deregulatory savings. They use this figure of $2.45 billion, but let us put that into context. Under the Seamless National Economy reforms that were carried out by the former Labor government and conducted largely through the Council of Australian Governments, just the first 17 reforms that we introduced reduced business costs by $4 billion every year. That is a saving that the government now enjoy. So the work we did in government is now a saving that this government enjoy. But these were savings that were agreed on by the states and territories. These were savings that were agreed between the federal and state governments because they were actually good for the economy—real savings that actually delivered real outcomes. In 2008, under Labor, the COAG agreed to implement regulation and competition reforms under the National Partnership Agreement to deliver a Seamless National Economy, and 36 separate reforms were covered by this national partnership, comprising 27 deregulation priorities, eight areas of competition reform and a reform to regulation-making and review processes. All of these deregulation measures worked in unison to deliver better outcomes for the states, for the economy and for small business and workers.

These were the sorts of difficult, tough reforms that require thought, planning, action, negotiation—all the things that this government cannot do. It is really good at just picking up a redundant old piece of regulation. It has asked all the departments and department heads, 'Go and find anything we can burn and get rid of—where there is a full stop or a comma in the wrong place.' That is the extent of these so-called reforms. It is really where there are blank pages, like page 348AB, and other amendments that are completely blank. It just removes those then counts up the number of pages and says what a great job it has done. It just does not amount to anything. This is the problem. It just amounts to naught. We have a government that continues to put these things forward, actually damages the economy, and then says it is doing a great job.

A very good reform, for example, that we did, was the standard business reporting, which commenced on 1 July 2010. It offered Australian businesses, accountants, bookkeepers and tax agents a quick and simple way to lodge reports with government. The Productivity Commission estimates $500 million of potential benefits from this reform over nine years. It was a Labor reform, something that actually adds value to the economy, reduces a real burden for small business and helps industry and small business to create something, to make something happen. It is not just some fanciful bonfire of burning bits of paper. I could never quite understand the fascination that the Prime Minister seemed to have with just burning regulation. This sort of concept around burning books just seems to me to be a really unusual way to describe things or think about things that government does.

It was also the former Labor government that introduced the national business names registration service for a single online registration process, removing the requirement for a small business to register in each state or territory. We took it from being basically a paper based system to an online, 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week, single port for small business. That was good reform. It was opposed and demeaned by the Liberals and the Nationals all the way through, and now they are so happy with the outcome and, in fact, it is so successful that there is talk of it being spun out, outsourced and privatised because it is such a successful operation.

Labor also introduced the superannuation clearing house, again enabling small business to get on with their main task of doing what they are good at and taking the burden of paperwork and other things further and further out of their hands so it is just not necessary.

The story that I am painting here today in terms of these bills is that of course Labor always welcomes deregulation. We always welcome getting rid of redundant, unnecessary, red-tape burdens, but let us just not make such a fanfare over what in the end amounts—like most of the things that this government has done—to absolutely nothing. It does not help small business. It does not actually create anything that is real or concrete.

Let us just put a test out there for the government speakers. Let them, when they are making a contribution here, tell us about the great programs of reform around red-tape reduction: national business names registration, the superannuation clearing house, COAG agreements and negotiation and reforms—real reforms that deliver real savings to the national economy that create growth and jobs. It was over $4 billion every year when Labor was in. All they can count on their side is having set a torch to some redundant pieces of blank paper.

See this speech in context