Graham Perrett (Moreton, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

The Senate committee report on the bill in 2008 noted that the Attorney-General's Department described the objectives of the then bill as the four Cs: the regime that would be created would deliver more certain, consistent, less complex and cheaper arrangements in relation to personal property securities. And when you talk to lawyers today you see that. You see it time after time. Prior to the 2009 act, consumers and businesses had to negotiate their way through a minefield of unnecessary red tape. Some security interests had to be registered in more than one jurisdiction and on more than one register to be fully effective. There were both electronic registers and paper based registers and in some cases, some jurisdictions, there were no registers at all. This resulted not only in confusion but in unnecessary costs for everyone involved—more work for lawyers, more costs for consumers. The reforms were described as 'the most substantial reform in a decade'. The is what the member for Hughes is asking the Labor Party to apologise for and I guess he is also asking everyone who was in parliament in 2009 and is currently here who voted for this legislation. It is bizarre. I am hoping that the Prime Minister will try to rein him in.

Let's look at what the Consumer Action Law Centre said. They supported the idea of 'national personal property security laws and a register that makes that work more efficiently and laws that again create certainty and efficiency in that system'. But let's hear from some other 'crazy, left-wing' organisation—like the Australian Bankers' Association! What did they say? They said that they are 'very supportive of the two-pronged PPS reform proposals—register and substantive law reform'. I know they might have Anna Bligh working for them at the moment, but they are not a left-wing organisation—and I should stress, member for Hughes, that I was being ironic when I said that.

The reforms, while they made day-to-day transactions simpler and less expensive, required a complete mind shift for lawyers and articled clerks, which was the point I was making in my speech in 2009. The common law and equitable principles previously underpinning the law of personal property securities were all but abandoned for the far less complex PPS regime. The concepts of a floating charge and crystallisation of a floating charge are now replaced with the straightforward rules provided by the PPS Act. That was certainly a relief to a lot of young law students, I am sure—turning 70 into one—and, as I said, maybe even articled clerks. It was the newly minted law graduate who often had the task of going from building to building with various forms to register personal property securities on the 70 different registers that existed throughout Australia.

The object of that legislation, brought in by the Labor government, by Robert McClelland—this monumental reform—was to make life easier for lawyers but also to make doing business much more streamlined and less expensive. The Labor Party put the consumer first. That object has been achieved. That is why the Prime Minister voted for it. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister, in the Senate, voted for it. That is why every sensible Liberal Party person who believes in small business voted for it. Yet we have the member for Hughes calling for them to apologise—unbelievable.

The World Bank gives a rating to countries on the ease of doing business in that country. In 2013 Australia jumped from 10th place from a previous 15th place in these rankings. The introduction of the 2009 PPS Act is credited as being instrumental in improving that rating. How are they going under the coalition government? How are we going in terms of ease of doing business at the moment, in the last four years of this shambolic government that we have here. The World Bank publication that lists the rankings particularly commented on the PPS reform, saying:

In Australia the Personal Property Securities Act 2009 and associated regulations came into effect, and a single, national online register began operating. The web-based registry allows creditors to conduct searches and register security interests in personal properties at any time.

In the World Bank's assessment of which country has the most legal rights for borrowers and lenders, Australia had the highest ranking attainable in 2013.

The PPS Act, when it was introduced in 2009, revolutionised the way business was conducted in Australia. Everyone from small businesses, large supply companies, finance companies, banks and ordinary Australians benefited from the protections the regime offered. Labor is proud of these reforms; Labor will not be apologising for doing the right thing by small business and big business. The PPS reforms were real regulatory reform that cut red tape, lowered costs for businesses and improved productivity. That term 'red tape' is one I have heard a lot in the 44th Parliament and 45th Parliament—not so much in the 45th but certainly the 44th Parliament.

I remember the Liberal government's obsession with red tape repeal. Let's be fair dinkum, it amounted to attacking a couple of commas and a few brackets. It is what every sensible government does, but it was the great visionary achievement of the Abbott-Turnbull conglomeration—celebrate red tape repeal day. I remember it because it was like an obsession. You are lucky, the class of 2016, you did not have to hear some of the speeches about 'We attacked some commas', 'We took it to those semicolons'. It was like being in the trenches in World War I. It was unbelievable that they could focus so much on it, and I am really not kidding. In fact, I have to this day the current governments Cutting Red Tape web page, which is subheaded 'The Australian Government's online resource for regulation reform'. I printed it off yesterday, and it gives these tips:

The Australian Government's Guide to Regulation has been written to help change the way policy makers think about regulation and to inform the consultation and policy making processes.

Families, businesses and community organisations pay the price for poor regulation and the purpose of this Guide is to help make better regulation, not more regulation.

Strangely, this Prime Minister is not having his red tape celebration days. He is leaving the commas alone or maybe he is just doing what governments do—he is doing that part of the job rather than having champagne and confetti every time he attacks a semicolon. But we do have this government website telling us how great the government is for doing its job.

We did have those four repeal days—spring and autumn repeal days in 2014 and 2015. We normally started with the Omnibus Repeal Day Bill. Sadly and unbelievably, not all of the bills were actually passed on the celebrated repeal date. For example, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profit Commission (Repeal) Bill 2014—and I am sure the member for Fenner would know this—did not pass. Most of the bills were to abolish bodies that were actually defunct, to consolidate previous bodies and repeal spent and redundant provisions and acts and, of course, to eliminate those pesky commas and unruly full stops. It was a jihad on grammar—a grammar jihad. Thankfully, the current Prime Minister wanted to distinguish himself from that great visionary, the member for Warringah, and so he decided that we would not have these repeal days. Instead, he has focused on those great challenges, like responding to dangerous climate change—no, I am just kidding, Deputy Speaker—he is instead defending people's right to be bigots or he is focusing on the idea of using coal to pump water up a hill. He is doing some great stuff. He is definitely a man of vision—

See this speech in context