Andrew Giles (Scullin, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I am unlikely to, Parliamentary Secretary, and I certainly would not be likely to fall over a dairy cow affected by this regulation because the period of approval for a new agreement lapsed in 1977, quite some time ago. Of course, that means no agreements are currently in place and all payments have been made. I am sure the parliamentary secretary, unlike me, is very well versed in dairy cows and presumably is well versed in that fact as well. The act is redundant, and it has been since shortly after I was born.

In the Treasury portfolio, five acts have been repealed, all of which, clearly, are spent and redundant. It is a good thing; not worth making a song and dance about except when you have nothing else to have a song and dance about, Parliamentary Secretary McCormack. By way of example, I turn to the International Monetary Agreements Act 1959, which related to an increase in Australia's quota in the IMF and an increase in the capital stock of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. It has been repealed. Given that these transactions have already happened quite some time ago, of course, the act is redundant. Similarly, in the social services portfolio there is the removal of a number of indexation provisions that are spent, that have passed their date of effect. As a result, of course, they are no longer needed in legislation.

At the end of the day, this is a Seinfeld bill. It is a bill about nothing. It is busy-making for those members opposite who want to be seen to be doing something because they have no positive agenda worth speaking of. So when big decisions are being made about the direction of Australian politics, here we are debating repealed, redundant and spent provisions.

There was much reference from the previous speaker, and I imagine from other government contributors to this debate, about the record of the Rudd and Gillard governments in this regard. I say again: let's compare our record in repealing genuinely unnecessary regulations with the record of this government. More to the point, in respect of the bill before the House, let us think about the acts I have just been talking about. These were not provisions of the previous Labor government that have been repealed; they go way back in history to the fifties and the seventies. You are not dealing with business left over from the previous government; you are dealing with relics from the Menzies era. Perhaps today, of all days, that is an appropriate motif in this parliament, Parliamentary Secretary McCormack.

I do turn to the modest and mundane savings that have been claimed to result from the passage of this bill. Labor are, of course, always keen to look at sensible savings mechanisms. We did this in government; we will continue to do so in opposition. We did not and we will not need special days to celebrate doing the ordinary business of government; we will continue to get on with the business of government on behalf of the Australian people, and I hope an election comes soon to give us the chance to make that case. There are only two items in this bill that are said to have any deregulatory savings. Of course, I refer to the explanatory memorandum, which I think is a reasonably authoritative source in this regard, but I go to the claims as well.

The first relates to the removal of the requirement to sign a statutory declaration when submitting a compensation claim under the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995. Instead, a claimant is able to declare the information provided is true and correct using existing forms. This is estimated to generate $41-odd million in deregulatory savings. The second relates to the granting of greater access to aggregated information under certain social services legislation to the public where that information does not disclose information about a particular person. This will enable greater access to the information for use by researchers and the general public. This is estimated to generate­­—wait for it—$3,000 in deregulatory savings. I guess, Parliamentary Secretary, if we look after the pennies—

See this speech in context