John Cobb (Calare, National Party) Share this | Hansard source

It is very good of the member for Hunter to remind us that we should not waste time and should get on with it and be relevant—I will remember that!

Today I would very much like to be part of the debate on the Omnibus Repeal Day (Spring 2015) Bill 2015. We often talk about red tape and the time and the effort it soaks up. And I have to tell you, Mr Deputy Speaker: I am not the biggest advocate of political correctness; I think political correctness is trying to drag Australian society down to the level of countries that are far less efficient and far less fortunate than we are. If we are not very careful, the mountain of paperwork that we deal with in every area of life—particularly in the building industry, and particularly for people who want to establish small businesses and such things—could bury us. The biggest disincentive to a young couple to go out and work for themselves is the paperwork and the reporting they are required to do.

A lot of what we are talking about here today is not so much about the business side—although that is probably the most important side of it, because small businesses particularly do not have the personnel and the time to deal with a lot of the reporting and the red tape that we are all faced with today, and that is incredibly important. But it is very easy to forget that this also concerns the health industry, government and non-government, and the aged-care industry, and various other organisations such as not-for-profits or those in communication and the arts, especially if they have volunteers, because volunteers are not going to be too rapt with having to deal with a lot of the red tape and the reporting et cetera.

This bill will amend or repeal legislation across 14 Commonwealth departments that are not the subject of individual stand-alone bills. The bill is about cleaning out spent or redundant legislation. The government must ensure the job is getting done in the most efficient way, and we always look to assess and scrutinise legislation and government bodies to ensure they deliver the best services to the Australian public. But the bill is also about simplifying things, and we have to do that on a regular basis. Any government which simply passes legislation without looking at whether it is becoming redundant or is simply a waste of time puts itself or its motivations at risk.

This bill will see legislation in aged care and the Health portfolio altered, making it more accessible and easier to understand. The administration of residential aged care will be improved, by altering many provisions of the Aged Care Act 1997, making it a faster process. Currently the act requires the approved providers to notify the Department of Health of changes in key personnel and their employment within 28 days. In circumstances where an employee leaves and is replaced by another, this would require two notifications to the department even if neither changed or affected the quality of care. This is an unnecessary requirement, taking up precious time for the aged-care provider and also the department, which is absolutely inundated with requests and sometimes has up to 10,000 notifications from aged-care providers each year.

The Aged Care Act 1997 will still require providers to notify the department of changes in circumstances that materially affect the provider's suitability to provide care. These are simple but necessary changes, saving not only time but also costs. The Department of Health has estimated it will lead to an annual saving of well over $1 million in compliance costs.

Other aspects of the bill deal with medical training and the fishing council. The omnibus bill will abolish the Medical Training Review Panel. Currently this panel overlaps with the National Medical Training Advisory Network, and both of these bodies' functions include providing advice on medical workforce planning and medical training plans to inform government, employers and educators, and the advisory network will now pick up the reporting obligations on medical training and education. Obviously, we do not need two bodies doing the same job. The bill will also repeal part 3 of Fisheries Administration Act 1991. That part of the act establishes the Fishing Industry Policy Council, which has not convened for close to 14 years.

This bill will also change various acts in the Communications and the Arts portfolio. I would not claim to be a close follower of the arts portfolio, but I think we all deal with communications. Once more we will remove duplication of legislation, including that which is under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992, the Interactive Gambling Act 2001 and the Telecommunications Act 1997. Much of this involves removal of ineffective consultation requirements, repealing a number of inconsistent approaches to the time and method of doing so. Some of these consultation periods range from 14 to 60 days with a requirement of publication on a website, while some require publication in multiple newspapers. These requirements are not consistent and they are inflexible. We should not be tied up looking through outdated and unnecessary regulations to see if they apply. Spent acts to be repealed also include the Statistical Bureau (Tasmania) Act 1924 and the Papua and New Guinea Loan (International Bank) Act 1970. Leaving this legislation in place serves no purpose other than making it harder for people to understand, which is rather unreasonable given that New Guinea has not been our protectorate for some 25, 35 or 40 years.

The coalition are committed to ensuring businesses, community organisations, families and individuals can find information with ease surrounding regulations that matter to them. This is clear, as the government has decided to repeal over 10,000 legislative instruments and around 3,600 acts of parliament. It may not be exciting—and a lot of housekeeping is not—but we have to make sure that the legislation and regulation serve a real purpose and do not just fill out a folder somewhere. We do not want to be overwhelmed and over-governed by regulations sitting idle and providing barriers to the important information.

I commend this bill to the House—no matter which aspect we look at, whether it is for business, not-for-profit organisations or non-government organisations. For all those parts of legislation which require government departments and others to do things and follow certain principles—whether it is taxpayer money paying public servants, or a husband and wife running their own business—saving money is the name of the game, making life simple and not just putting stuff there for a reason that adds to the mountain of paper. It is extraordinarily important. I repeat what I said at the outset. If it is just there because it is politically correct, that is an even better reason to get rid of it.

See this speech in context