Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party, Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Small Business) Share this | Hansard source

But being a good government has nothing to do with this sort of housekeeping. This is the kind of housekeeping that every government does. Most governments have other things that they want to promote as their achievements. Most governments have other things on which they would be in here with 30 speakers. Most governments would have something to say other than, 'Oh, we're repealing legislation which no longer has any purpose.' Most governments would—not this one, and I can understand why, because in many ways this is one of your achievements.

I am actually going to spend the next 11 minutes talking about the bill. If the government want to debate this bill for some 10 hours, I think it is about time that someone actually talked about what is in the bill so the people of Australia can see what the government think is so important that they are going to spend 10 hours of parliamentary time on it—something that is so important that they want the world to know all about it. Let's actually talk about what it is.

The Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015 includes amendments and repeals, and the member for Moore did say it covers agriculture, environment, health, Indigenous affairs, social services and Treasury. It does include all those areas, but not the areas that he spoke about. It repeals redundant acts. There are two things that it does other than that—and I am going to go through the redundant acts. It changes the Health and Other Services (Compensation) Act 1995 to remove a requirement that compensation recipients submit a stat dec; they sign a form instead. That is actually a simple change. That will make, according to the government, around $41 million in deregulatory savings. We have doubts on this side that that is the right number, but that is fine. Instead of signing a stat dec for your workers comp, basically you sign the form. That is fine. There is a second one which makes it easier for the public to access aggregate data relating to social security et cetera, and that change is estimated to lead to $3,000 in deregulatory savings. So they are the two elements of these three bills which actually do things other than repeal legislation which no longer has a purpose. Everything else in this bill repeals stuff that is no longer relevant.

I am sorry that you are in the chair, Deputy Speaker Jones, because I was actually going to refer to the speech you made earlier. I am still going to; I am just going to be gentler than I otherwise might, because I know that as the Deputy Speaker you have to—

Mr McCormack interjecting—

Well, I am speaking about the bill, so he would find it hard to find a reason to do that. The member for Herbert, in his speech earlier, said that the government was starting with the easy stuff—abolishing the redundant stuff, the easy stuff—and eventually, at some point, it would have to start getting to the harder stuff. I would think that you get into government to deal with the hard stuff. I would not think you would actually try and get into government in order to do the stuff that someone can do by cleaning out a cupboard, which is essentially what is happening here. I would say to the member for Herbert and the government members, if you want to deregulate, if you want to save the economy from red tape, if you want to do the work in that area, you actually have to do the work. You actually have to sit down with the states. Most of our regulatory issues are not just to do with one level of government. They occur because, over a century, we have accumulated competing bills in various jurisdictions. It is really hard work.

Labor, in government, worked with the states through COAG towards what we called the Seamless National Economy. There were 45 reforms put forward by that COAG Reform Council. By the time we lost government, 31 had been completed or largely completed and eight were partially completed. It was estimated by the Productivity Commission that just 17 of those 31 completed items saved business $4 billion each year in improvements to productivity and they increased GDP by $6 billion. That is $4 billion in savings each year from 17 of the 31 reforms that we introduced. And we have a government bragging and having repeal days—giant stunts—because they believe they can cut costs by $1 billion a year. It was $4 billion a year from Labor, because we did it the hard way, and it is $1 billion a year from this government. And the government are nowhere near the target yet, given that they have not passed last year's legislation yet, and the legislation we are debating today was introduced six months ago, so there is clearly no hurry. If you actually want to make it, you want to get your skates on. But the government are aiming at $1 billion. We achieved $4 billion. And they are bragging. Today there are 30 speakers on this bill.

Let us look at the repealing of the acts. In the Agriculture portfolio, there are zero deregulatory savings—none, not a bit. The Dairy Adjustment Act 1974 act provided financial assistance for the purpose of dairy adjustment programs, allowing agreements to be made with the states to make payments. But that agreement came into effect in 1996, and it lapsed with the approval of a new agreement in 1977. So it has been dead since 1977. Can I suggest to the member for Moore and several other speakers who have said that, by repealing old legislation, they save business from having to go through all the statute books and read the legislation to see whether or not it applies to them: no-one is reading this act to see if it applies to them. There are zero deregulatory savings, even according to the government.

Then there is the Domestic Meat Premises Charge Act 1993. The Department of Agriculture deregistered the last two meat establishments that this act covered on 12 June 2009. It is dead. It has gone. It has finished. It will never be used again. No-one is trawling through it to find out whether or not it applies to them. It applies to nobody. The Meat Export Charge Act 1984 was enacted to impose a charge on applications for the inspection of export meat, but cost recovery arrangements are now set out under the export system, so it is just not used any more. It is covered elsewhere. The Meat Inspection Act 1983 was enacted to provide for the domestic inspection of meat for human consumption, but the states and territories now carry out those activities and it is covered under their statutes. Again, no-one is trawling through this act to see whether or not it applies to them. There are zero deregulatory savings.

The Primary Industry Councils Act 1991 was enacted to establish industry councils, but they have not existed since 1993. Again, there are not a whole stack of councils out there looking through this act—not one. There are 30 government speakers on this stuff. No wonder they are not speaking about the bill. It would be a very boring 10 hours if they all actually got up and spoke about this bill, I can tell you. Abolition of the Australian Landcare Council is items 8 to 16 of the schedule. There are a lot of items in this schedule. The plan was to consolidate the Australian Landcare Council and the Natural Heritage Trust Advisory Committee into the National Landcare Advisory Committee. There are currently no members in the Landcare Council. There are quite a few bills that get abolished because of that change. There is also the abolition of the Natural Heritage Trust Advisory Committee. It has not met since 2010. There is the abolition of the Biological Diversity Advisory Committee, and the membership of that committee lapsed in 2007. Again, this is an enormous benefit to small business! I can just see small business asking, 'Would you please abolish the Biological Diversity Advisory Committee act because they have not met since 2007 and never will again?' You can imagine all those small businesses just cheering at how much money you have saved them!

Mr McCormack interjecting—

'Wildly,' says the parliamentary secretary. That shows how much he knows small business. For protected area management plans, items 7 to 12 of the schedule remove duplicate exemptions covering Heard Island and McDonald Island. They are actually covered in the marine reserves now. Again, there is no need for that act.

Schedule 3 covers the Health and Human Services portfolios. This is the one where there is a possible saving of $41.4 million because the statutory declarations are no longer required. That is probably one of the things that I might have expected someone on the other side to mention, because it does actually make a change. Again, it is not a change that warrants 30 speakers and 10 hours of parliamentary time, but, as I said, no-one on that side is actually speaking about the bill.

Schedule 4 covers Prime Minister and Cabinet and Indigenous affairs: zero regulatory savings again. The Aboriginal Affairs (Arrangements with States) Act 1973 was replaced really by clauses in the Public Service Act 1999. It has not been relevant for 16 years. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Discriminatory Laws) Act 1975 was superseded by state laws, and the Queensland laws which superseded it have been repealed. This is really interesting. I am so glad I get to speak on this bill! Item 3, section 16 of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Queensland Reserves and Communities Self-management) Act 1978 will be made ineffective when the government repeals the actions that I mentioned two minutes ago, so it is a follow-on act.

Schedule 5 covers social services and use of protected information. This is a change that will save a total of $3,000 in deregulatory savings. Again, I have not heard anyone on the government side talking about that, but there are $3,000 in savings. Part 2 repeals spent indexation provisions from the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 and the Social Security Act 1991. These provisions have passed their date of effect. The bill repeals the Retirement Assistance for Farmers Scheme and the Retirement Assistance for Sugarcane Farmers Scheme from the Social Security Act 1991. These schemes closed in 2001 and 2007 respectively but they are about to be repealed. How wonderful that is.

See this speech in context