David Coleman (Banks, Liberal Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is good to speak on this most important legislation, the Omnibus Repeal Day (Autumn 2015) Bill 2015, touching as it does on a very big difference between a government which is about less regulation—getting out of the way, letting Australians get on with their lives and not seeking to impose government in every corner of Australian life—and an opposition bereft of ideas and, indeed, judging government not by the quality of legislation but by its volume.

I looked around in preparation to speak on this matter and there were some really fascinating comments by very senior members of the previous government, who were in a rather self-congratulatory mood around 2013. They sought to comment not so much on the calibre of legislation that had been passed by the previous government but rather its volume. Senior members of the previous government, now opposite, were getting very excited and are pointing to the fact that they passed hundreds of pieces of legislation as if that were some sort of wonderful testament to their ability in good governance. The member for Grayndler was very excited one day. He said, 'We've now passed 307 pieces of legislation through the House of Representatives.' The member for Blaxland, my neighbour in south-western Sydney, said:

Despite all the negativity … this parliament has passed 482 pieces of legislation …

What an extraordinary reflection that is on the previous government. It was not about the calibre of the legislation but actually about the volume.

There may have been 482 pieces of legislation, but within those 482 pieces of legislation there was some really bad stuff. There was some really bad legislation in those 482 pieces, so it probably would have been sensible for those opposite to say, 'Let's not focus so much on the 482 number. Let's actually make sure that the legislation we pass is good for the country.' Good for the country—to me, that is the key point.

Within the 482 pieces of legislation there was of course the carbon tax bill—that was one of the 482, and not one to be proud of. There was the mining tax legislation—that was one of the 482 pieces of legislation and, again, not one to be proud of. It really is a very significant divide, that those opposite and their colleagues in public sector academia would seek to focus on the volume of legislation rather than its quality. As we know, there are many occasions on which governments both in recent history from those opposite and historically, going back decades, have passed legislation which might have been acclaimed at the time but which was actually incredibly destructive to the good will and economic success of their nations.

One of the most important areas to think about—and it is very topical at the moment—is free trade. Mr Deputy Speaker, think about what we are actually doing with free trade, because free trade—in a sense—is the ultimate act of deregulation. Free trade is a very big act of deregulation. What has happened over a period going back many decades is that governments around the world have sought to make trade between nations more difficult. That is the bottom line. Governments around the world have sought to make trade between themselves and other nations more difficult. That is what they have done. When you put a tariff on an item you make it more expensive for the other country to buy and that means they buy less. If you seek to impose tariffs on incoming goods and services—what do the other nations do? They sort of turn around and say, 'We don't like that very much. We're going to do the same thing to you.' You might think, 'We want to protect this particular category and we're going to whack a 20 per cent tariff on it.' But with negotiations being what they are and humans being what they are, other countries say, 'You do that to us and we're going to put a 20 per cent tariff on you.' And what is the ultimate result? Higher prices for consumers, fewer things being traded and lower standards of living.

If you look back over the last century, I think it is fair to say that there has probably been no pattern of government regulation across the globe which has been more destructive to the wealth and living standards of nations than the imposition of artificial tariff barriers. It was a terrible idea when it started back in the early 20th century, and it remains a terrible idea today.

If we go back to 1930, in response to the Great Depression in the United States there was a view that said, 'If we really just put a whole bunch of tariffs on incoming products that will make things a whole lot better.' That was of course the Smoot-Hawley legislation. Of course, what happened was that the United States suffered retaliation from other nations and that contributed significantly to the appalling economic circumstances that the world suffered in the 1930s.

Around the time of World War II, nations started to realise that this was counterproductive and gradually dismantled trade barriers. But there are still very big trade barriers today. What is the biggest opportunity here for Australia in the entire space of deregulation? It is to deregulate and reduce the trade barriers with our largest trading partner, China. That is the single biggest deregulatory opportunity that faces this government and our nation.

We know that there has been a massive increase in trade with China, despite the fact that we still have significant barriers, significant tariffs on Australian producers and significant complexities in getting into those markets. It really is very worthwhile just to reflect a little on how quickly trade with China has grown, what the opportunities are and the absolute wanton destruction of those opposite and their discredited allies in the CFMEU and other places who would seek to stand in the way of this fantastic opportunity for ordinary Australians.

If you go back to 1998-99, not that long ago—about 15 years—Australia's trade with New Zealand was larger than its trade with China. That is an extraordinary statistic. In 1998-99 there was two-way trade in goods and services, worth $11 billion, between Australia and China. And trade with New Zealand was worth $13 billion. So we had a bigger trading relationship with that very small nation New Zealand—great friends, though, they are—than with this enormous place with more than one billion people living in it.

Things changed over time and, by 2003-04, China was our third largest trading partner but still a long way behind Japan and the US. By 2008-09 China had become our biggest trading partner, at $83 billion, just a little bit bigger than Japan. But by 2013-14—the year for which we have the most recent figures—the relationship was worth $160 billion, it was two to one in Australia's favour in the sense we exported twice as much as we brought in, the relationship was twice as big as that of our second-biggest trading partner, Japan, and accounted for more than 24 per cent of our entire world trade in goods and services. So one in every four trade dollars of our nation, across the entire world, is with China. This is a massive economic partner. What did this government do?

Under the experienced leadership of the Minister for Trade and Investment we took negotiations, which had gone nowhere under those opposite and which had sat idle for six years after being started by the Howard government, and we got a deal done. We got a deal done, which is the best deal that China has done with any developed nation. It is a phenomenal opportunity. It is estimated by the Centre for International Economics to add $4½ thousand to GDP for the average household so that is, effectively, $4½ thousand of wealth per household in Australia. The various free trade agreements will create 178,000 jobs and are expected to lead to huge increases in the export of our services and goods into China.

It is absolutely self-evident that if you care about Australia, if you care about the future, you back this agreement—you really do. If you are going to put politics aside on anything, and say: 'This is in the interests of our nation. We're not going to be petty about this and seek to divide and confuse and scare, we're going to do the right thing by the nation.' If those opposite were going to do that on one thing, this is the one to do it on because there is nothing more significant than this China-Australia Free Trade Agreement for the economic future of our country.

But those opposite would seek to maintain a regulated environment, with tariffs between our nations, that is wealth destructive and that will hurt Australian families and thousands of Australian businesses that want to do business with China. It is a terrible reflection on those opposite and it absolutely demonstrates their lack of fitness to govern and, in particular, the lack of leadership of the Leader of the Opposition, who, should he purport to be up to the job of Prime Minister, would surely put politics aside on this most important area.

I mention that important issue because we are talking about deregulation today and, under the leadership of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, we have built on the many acts of deregulation that have already occurred under the government over the past two years. One of the most noteworthy acts of deregulation has been the establishment of a one-stop shop for environmental approvals. Previously, if you had a major project, environmental approvals are required. That is appropriate and we need to ensure that environmental issues are protected. But you basically had to talk to a whole bunch of people—state authorities, local authorities and federal authorities. It was very complex, time wasting, value destructive and no good for anyone. So we said: 'Let's not do that anymore. Let's have a one-stop shop for environmental approvals. Still assess the environmental issues, still ensure appropriate compliance is there but take out a whole lot of irrelevant time-wasting activity.' And as a direct consequence of the establishment of that one-stop shop under this government there has been $1 trillion worth of approvals for major projects. And that is trillion with a 't'—$1 trillion is a lot. That is $1,000 billion of environmental approvals, a very significant development.

There are so many other changes as well in these deregulatory measures. The 457 visa program plays an important role in filling skills shortages. We should never walk away from that factor; it does have a role to play. Streamlining the process for 457 visas has resulted in compliance savings of about $30 million.

If you went to the ATO website a couple of years ago it would, frankly, not have been a very pleasant experience. It was very complicated and very difficult to navigate and work out what you needed to do. By streamlining that site, by making it more effective, we have produced annual compliance savings of close to $50 million in terms of that lost time and effort. The MyGov site, similar to the theme of the one-stop shop, is a very useful development. In the education area, the NAPLAN national system is a very popular and sensible education policy which ensures a degree of consistency across the nation. We have made the assessment platform for that a lot simpler by making it an online tool, with compliance savings of about $10 million there.

So we have had a whole range of deregulatory measures. The reason we do this is that we believe in it. We absolutely believe—in the marrow of our bones, in our DNA and absolutely everywhere—that government should be limited. Government should act when it needs to, but government should not act for the sake of it. It should not purport that it has the solution to every problem, because it does not. No government in history has had the answer to every problem and no government will. We should be absolutely clear that the power to build this nation ultimately resides with the Australian people. Our job is to create the fair rules of play and to get government out of the way so as to allow Australians to be their best. The free trade agreement with China is a fantastic example of that philosophy, and it is an indictment of those opposite that they seek to divide and confuse on this issue. They should get behind this very important legislation and, indeed, all of the measures in this omnibus bill that we discuss this evening.

See this speech in context