Shayne Neumann (Blair, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I'm pleased to speak on the Statute Law Amendment (Prescribed Forms and Other Updates) Bill 2023. The Statute Law Revision Act and statute stocktake acts like this one have been passed since 1934 in order to remove obsolete and spent provisions from the statute books and correct drafting mistakes. That's five years before World War II, when Joseph Lyons was the Prime Minister of the time. So it's nothing unusual. We've been doing it for nearly a hundred years.

The amendments are minor and technical in nature and make either no change or only minor changes to the substance of the law. It's really legislative housekeeping. They're traditionally non-controversial, but, at the same time, they're essential to keep the Commonwealth statute book accurate and up to date, and statute law revision and update bills like this play an important role in enhancing the clarity and efficiency of the statute books. To that end, this bill amends 85 Commonwealth acts to enhance administration and promote consistency across the ream of Commonwealth statutes.

The Statute Law Amendment (Prescribed Forms and Other Updates) Bill makes technical and minor amendments. Firstly, it updates references to prescribed forms in the statute law of the Commonwealth to reduce the number of provisions that require forms to the prescribed by regulation, replacing such requirements with other approaches, such as allowing forms to be approved by notifiable instruments; secondly, it updates references to persons with disability in the Family Law Act, the Social Security Act 1991 and the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 to promote inclusive language that focuses on the person rather than the disability, consistent with modern drafting practices and guidance from peak disability bodies; thirdly, it updates references related to the Northern Territory legislation and Commonwealth legislation consistent with the way the Northern Territory government and the Northern Territory now cites its own acts of parliament; fourthly, it makes minor and technical amendments to 33 Commonwealth acts and repeals certain obsolete acts and provisions; fifthly, it amends 12 acts to remove spent and obsolete acts; and, finally, it repeals the bill for acts of parliament and enhances reliability, facilitates interpretation and administration, and promotes consistency.

The bill has a number of schedules. Schedule 1 amends provisions in 33 acts that require forms by regulation and replaces them with the best practice approach for particular forms. These amendments implement modern drafting practices in relevant circumstances, such as providing for forms to be approved by a specified person or body by a notifiable instrument or enabling regulations to directly mandate the requirements themselves rather than require particular forms. They ensure that there is still oversight of the information to be provided while enabling flexibility in updating and improving forms. However, before minor updates or significant improvements can be made to these forms, further regulation will need to be made.

As a result of this limitation, when drafting modern legislation, careful consideration needs to be undertaken to make sure each specific form must be prescribed to whether the situation might be dealt with using another approach. The amendments in schedule 1 reflect this. They also contain some associated minor consequential and technical amendments to support the operation of amended provisions. For example, application provisions are included to clarify when the requirement to use the prescribed form ceases.

Schedule 2 is an important schedule because it updates our understanding and makes sure our statute books reflect our understanding of disability. Schedule 2 updates languages relating to persons with disability by replacing languages that we would not use today in modern Australia, focusing on the person rather than the disability. For example, the object of the amendments in schedule 2 is to prevent negative impact on the lives of people living with disability resulting from the way they're referred to in legislative provisions. So these amendments are not intended to change the way those particular acts that relate to people living with disability interact with the Commonwealth government, but the updated language is intended to be consistent with the recommendations of disability advocacy groups.

The schedule 2 amendments reflect a report that was done by Economic Justice Australia in August 2022 called 'Handicapped': Use of outdated terminology and social security law and policy. The report found that language that placed disability before the person created a barrier to full participation in society by suggesting a person is unlikely to succeed because of disability. That's simply a disgrace. We want to make sure that the legislation that deals with people living with disability reflects the reality. So three pieces of Commonwealth legislation are going to be omitted as a result of this: the Family Law Act, the Social Security Act and the Veterans' Entitlement Act. For example, provisions that include 'handicapped' are going to go.

Schedule 3 updates references to the Northern Territory and the way they deal with legislation up there. Schedule 4-6 corrects technical errors made as a result of drafting and clerical mistakes—just occasionally the parliamentary draftsmen get it wrong—and repeals obsolete acts and spent and obsolete provisions of acts. It improves readability and facilitates interpretation and administration of the act.

I am pleased that the opposition spokesperson made reference to what they were doing previously and the sort of stuff that they would do, because who can simply forget those omnibus repeal days. We spent day after day, every year, listening to former Prime Minister Abbott, the member for Warringah, and Joe Hockey, and the whole of their backbench and frontbench, spend their days—this is what he referred to—talking about what they were doing and that they were getting rid of red tape. It was astonishing.

That was instead of doing a clean-up like we did. When we were last in government, we got rid of 16,800 pieces of legislation, legislative instruments and regulation. We did most of this stuff in the Federation Chamber, I might add. What they did, on this particular stuff, when they were in government was a big hullabaloo, political puffery of the greatest note. They would come in here and say they were going to save something like $1.8 billion of taxpayers' money by red tape repeal.

I can remember one occasion—as the shadow minister for ageing, at the time—where, with all the legislation they were going to change, they were going to save about $350,000 for the taxpayer because they were changing aged-care certification on building. So this sort of legislation we're dealing with today is exactly how we should do it: sensibly, in a modern way, doing it by way of schedule, not the grandiose political puffery we saw from those opposite when they were in and claiming they were doing amazing things. They were doing nothing of the sort. You had to go to the explanatory memorandum and look at the legislation to see what they were doing.

We didn't mind, for example, fixing up hyphens, semicolons and full stops, and making sure that redundant sections and sunset clauses went, and getting rid of legislation that didn't operate anymore. All this stuff was minor. It was important stuff but it was minor—legislative drafting errors, referring to a section that didn't exist or a piece of legislation that didn't operate anymore. This is what you do. Good governments do that stuff—not the nonsense that went on from those opposite that the previous speaker referred to. It was just rubbish. The red tape repeal day was the biggest waste of taxpayers' money you've ever seen in all your life.

I am pleased we're doing this today, because it makes sense. It literally makes sense to get rid of redundant legislation, to make sure it reflects the modern mores of Australian society. People living with disabilities should not be called handicapped. We should not have legislation on the statute books that says that. If there are acts of parliament that make it difficult for people to interact with the Commonwealth government because they're hard to read and outdated, get rid of them. Do it in a sensible, respectful, mature way.

Don't pretend to the Australian public you're doing something you're not, which is what we saw with the posing and preening from those opposite that the previous speaker referred to. We did it as well? We're not doing what they did. We're not deceiving the Australian public about how much money we're saving. They said, 'We're getting rid of all this red tape,' when they weren't doing anything of the sort. Exactly what we're doing, by this legislation before us today, is the right thing, the mature thing, the respectful thing, the sensible thing. The coalition would have had you believe they were saving billions of dollars—until you read the legislation.

This particular legislation before the chamber is really important. It is action that will make a difference to the lives of people. It's not window-dressing. It's delivering reform—not like the hollow legacy of those opposite when it came to statute law revision. Everyone knows that red tape reveal days were rubbish under those opposite. They're ideological nonsense. They were code for Commission of Audit deep cuts.

What they should have been doing is what governments of both persuasions, Labor and Liberal, should have been doing from the days of Jo Lyons in 1934: simply making amendments to ensure that statute books reflected reality, to make it easier for business, to make it easier for community groups, to make it easier for state and territory governments and local governments, making sure that we did the right thing, making sure that the legislation was nimble and agile. It wasn't about platitudes. It was about making sure it reflected the reality of society's contemporary views. So this legislation is important. Often, policies and programs increase barriers to business, so there needs to be the proper reduction of red tape. No-one thinks there shouldn't be.

For example—I can give a couple of illustrations—the crowdsourced funding legislation introduced a lot of onerous red tape for startups. Feedback from the startup and crowdfunding sectors at the time was that the legislation was riddled with undue compliance costs, administration costs and regulatory burdens, and that it had introduced additional reporting requirements for small businesses. Some said the red tape contained in it would force startups to jump through hoops, and it would be a significant deterrent to startups. So much for making it easier for businesses to raise capital. That's the sort of change we need to make. Remember: if you don't get it right, if you raise people's expectations, if you say you're doing one thing and you're not doing that, the public loses respect for you and you lose political support. It's no wonder those opposite eventually got turfed out. This was supposed to be a measure of red tape reduction, but the reality under those opposite was very, very different.

The system we need makes sure that we have legislation in the statute books that deals with serious problems. When people interact with the government, whether it's through the myGov or myTax online service portals, and they don't work and leave many users literally tearing their hair out, it's important for the government to listen and make sure that policies, programs and legislation reflect the reality. A consultative and collaborative approach to small business is about delivering practical measures to help business owners, operators, employees, community organisations, people living with disability and community organisations that deal with people living with disability get the help they need.

But for those opposite, red tape reduction mania infected every aspect of their government, including in the area of aged care, and look at what the royal commission said about the way that they dealt with aged care. I remember particularly in 2015 those opposite claimed a raft of measures were red tape reduction as part of their Aged Care Amendment (Red Tape Reduction in Places Management) Bill. That's what they did—things like the Aged Care Amendment (Red Tape Reduction in Places Management) Bill. Gee, that made a difference to the aged-care system in this country in 2015 and thereafter. It sure did. That's why the royal commission made well over 100 recommendations to fix a chronic, complex, difficult-to-navigate system. That's what the royal commission found about those opposite and their management. So much for the Aged Care Amendment (Red Tape Reduction in Places Management) Bill 2015. Even on areas of statute law revision, they couldn't get it right. They even tried to claim those measures in that particular bill were delivering—can you believe it?—$4.5 billion in savings, when it was only $63 million.

The reality of the matter is that what we did when we were last in government and what we are doing now is what coalition governments and Labor governments did in the past. In the area of aged care, one of the biggest administrative burdens is the My Aged Care website, and those opposite couldn't even fix that. It's very important that we do everything we can to make sure the statute law is not clunky, is not unsafe, is not time-consuming, and is easy to understand. I am all in favour of reducing red tape for small businesses, for aged care, for people living with disability and for consumers, but the coalition, the Liberal and National parties, were all about announcements and no delivery. When it comes to statute law revision, those days annually were one of the best examples of how those opposite failed to govern effectively for the benefit of the Australian public.

See this speech in context