Michael Keenan (Stirling, Liberal Party, Shadow Minister for Justice, Customs and Border Protection) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I rise to speak on the Legislative Instruments Amendment (Sunsetting Measures) Bill 2012. The Legislative Instruments Act 2003 provides that all regulations and other legislative instruments cease automatically after 10 years unless action is taken to exempt or preserve them. Because a large number of instruments were registered in the years immediately following commencement of the act, sunsetting will cause the mass expiration of over 6,300 instruments from 2015, with twin peaks in 2016 and 2018. The Productivity Commission in its 2011 report Identifying and evaluating regulation reforms identified a risk that instruments will be remade without adequate review and without proper consultation with business and other stakeholders.

It is noted that the sheer quantity of instruments required to be remade by government increases the risk that business and other stakeholders will not have sufficient time to make a meaningful contribution to any review. This bill will smooth sunsetting peaks by simplifying sunsetting dates. For instruments registered in bulk when the register commenced in 2005, the sunsetting dates will be spread out to reduce the number of instruments that expire at the same time and to provide for review and consultation.

The bill also inserts a provision to provide for thematic reviews. The introduction of thematic reviews was recommended by the Productivity Commission. Stakeholders will be able to participate in the regulation of their sector and contribute to consistency in regulation making. The bill will also allow for the repeal of spent and redundant instruments on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments. Approximately 40 per cent of the 40,000 titles on the register are either spent or redundant but, to a person looking for information on the register, these instruments appear to be in force. The bill will also clearly communicate the requirements for explanatory statements that accompany legislative instruments. This will assist businesses and individuals in understanding the exact implications and effect that each legislative instrument will have.

The coalition recognises that small businesses are the backbone of the Australian economy, and that is why we continually look for ways that we can support those 2.7 million businesses by cutting red tape and encouraging productivity, investment and growth. The Coalition Deregulation Taskforce was formed in December 2011 to cut red tape and reduce the regulatory burden to businesses by at least $1 billion a year. The Productivity Commission has estimated the rewards for red-tape reduction to be worth $12 billion extra in GDP.

Labor promised a one-in one-out approach to regulation in 2007 yet, instead, it has delivered 16,173 new regulations and repealed only 79. I have not done the calculation to what that means but, clearly, there has been a dramatic failure from the idea of having one in one out. This has resulted in increased regulation for small businesses and has hindered productivity, investment and growth. It is clear from these statistics that only the coalition is interested in assisting small businesses and it will devise ways to reduce the time and cost of compliance for business.

I look forward to the recommendations that the deregulation task force will report on by 1 July 2012 and how these findings will shape coalition policy and provide relief for small-business owners. This bill will support an efficient consultation process for all delegated legislation and will create a comprehensible, clear and fair framework for businesses operating within Australia. Red-tape reduction is a vitally important role for this parliament to play. The truth is that over the years this parliament has contributed greatly, on both sides of politics, to an increasingly complex regulatory burden for small, medium and large businesses. This bill goes some way to sensibly addressing some of these issues, but as a parliament we have a lot further to go.

I thought that the government's one-in one-out promise in 2007 was highly laudable. If they had achieved anything remotely near it they would have done a good thing, but when you are talking about 16,000 regulations enacted as opposed to 79 repealed then clearly that has been a monstrous and enormous failure. To have made that commitment and then not even come close to living up to it is a great shame. We are very serious about reducing red tape within the coalition. The red-tape reduction task force is being led by Senator Sinodinos who, people will know, is somebody with enormous public policy experience in Australia. He is deadly serious about tackling this burden and I commend his vision for creating a climate in which businesses can reap some of the benefits from not having to spend all their time in compliance with government legislation.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

The Legislative Instruments Act is essentially about reducing red tape for Australian businesses. The Legislative Instruments Amendment (Sunsetting Measures) Bill 2012 will enable the quick and efficient repeal of around 12,000 regulations. We will now be able to repeal thousands of unnecessary regulations through a new streamlined process rather than repealing them one by one.

This is the first time such a major clean-up of regulations has been undertaken. A second set of amendments improves the arrangements for the automatic repeal or sunsetting of regulations after 10 years and enables a review of those regulations as part of that process. Currently, sunset instruments must be reviewed strictly regulation by regulation, which can be cumbersome and confusing for affected businesses. This bill also encourages the review of regulations in a more coherent way—for example, by looking at regulations across a whole industry sector. In short, it makes it simpler for businesses, individuals and government.

Under the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 all regulations and other legislative instruments sunset or cease automatically after 10 years unless action is taken to exempt or preserve them. The purpose of sunsetting is to ensure that legislative instruments are kept up to date and only remain in force as long as they are required. Sunsetting is an important mechanism for the Australian government to pursue clearer laws and reduce red tape. However, the need to review legislative instruments to ensure they are still fit for purpose and, in many cases, to remake them after appropriate consultation may place acute demands on government and on stakeholders, especially businesses subject to regulation under legislative instruments. The issue has been highlighted in a number of recent reports. The Review of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 was done in 2008 by the Legislative Instruments Act Review Committee, and a second report by the Productivity Commission in 2011 identifying and evaluating regulation reforms raised this issue of the complexity of review and consultation. So it is important that we get this right.

At the time of enactment back in 2003, however, the then government did not accurately assess the number of legislative instruments in existence, apart from those 663 which were already published in hard copy in the statutory rules series. A very large number of regulations were registered in the years immediately following the commencement of the Legislative Instruments Act, and that list rose from 663 to some 6,300 instruments in a very short period of time. Many of those instruments—just over 6,000 of them—are due for a mass expiration in the years following 2015, with two peaks in 2016 and 2018. So, while the act at the time assumed a relatively small number of regulations, we have really very large peaks approaching in the next few years. More than 40,000 instruments are now in force, and as many as 40 per cent no longer serve a purpose, most having become spent having achieved their purpose as commencing, amending or repealing instruments. So, again, it has gone from 663 on the hard copy in the statutory rules in 2003 to some 40,000 now in place.

Consistent with the recommendations of the Productivity Commission report, the purpose of this bill is to smooth these sunsetting peaks and to encourage high-quality consultation before regulations and legislative instruments are remade. Specifically, the bill will amend the Legislative Instruments Act 2003 to cull spent and redundant instruments and provisions up to 10 years earlier than is provided for under the existing sunsetting regime; to provide greater certainty about when instruments sunset; to provide staged sunsetting dates for older instruments; to enable the Attorney-General to align sunsetting dates of related legislative instruments to enable thematic reviews to be conducted, thus reducing consultation burdens on stakeholders; and to clarify the requirements for explanatory material for instruments, including instruments that are remade following a review.

The bill introduces and encourages thematic reviews of legislative instruments by creating a mechanism to align sunsetting dates. This may involve bringing forward some sunsetting dates and pushing others back by up to five years. The ability to conduct thematic reviews will facilitate more efficient and effective review processes and enable departments and agencies to comprehensively engage with stakeholders prior to the remaking of any instrument. This is consistent with the Productivity Commission recommendation that more flexibility be introduced to enable thematic reviews of related instruments.

This is one of those bills that most people would not notice passing through the parliament. We have a relatively small number of speakers on it today.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Quality speakers.

Julie Owens (Parramatta, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

Quality speakers, yes—quality speakers, all of us, but a relatively small number of speakers. Yet it impacts on the workload of many tens of thousands of businesses around the country. It is incredibly important that we as a parliament continue to clean out unnecessary regulation. The fact that there are some 6,500 regulations due for sunsetting shortly again indicates the burden if we do not clean out these regulations from time to time, particularly given that up to 40 per cent of those are likely to be not serving any purpose at all. The provision in this bill that allows for very early sunsetting of regulations that have already served their purpose is a particularly good one. It will prevent the list of regulations from growing in the way that it has, from 600-odd in 2003 to some 40,000 now. I commend the bill to the House. Mr BILLSON (Dunkley) (16:14):  On the surface the Legislative Instruments Amendment (Sunsetting Measures) Bill 2012 seems quite a constructive step forward, but it does mask what I believe is some government dysfunction.Essentially the proposition being put to us today is that, because we have not quite got our act together to conduct the necessary reviews and consultations in a timely way, we will reschedule the timetable for regulations that would otherwise have expired under existing sunset provisions.

It comes as no surprise to me that the government has found itself in this situation and, frankly, it has come as no surprise to many in the business community—particularly the small-business community—who have been struggling under an enormous burden of growing red tape. The coalition has been aiming to put a spotlight on the growth in red tape. Who would have thought that the natural attrition of regulations would also be something that was compromised by this dysfunctional government? Yet that is why we are here today. The government has failed to uphold its 2007 election commitment of one-in one-out in terms of regulatory instruments. I must say, for those who may be listening to this speech, that one of the most enjoyable—yet not gripping—things I have done over the last four years is that my office has been tracking these numbers and, at the risk of correcting one of the earlier coalition speakers, the sorry record for one-in one-out is now 18,089 new or amended regulations since Labor was elected, and only 86 have been repealed. That actually runs at a rate of about 210 new or amended regulations for each one that has been repealed. To quote that great philosopher Maxwell Smart, 'Chief, missed by that much.' The government's performance has been not even close to its election promise, and this has caused great consternation in the small-business community in particular, where an additional regulatory burden may be dismissed by Canberra as just a small additional step or an additional requirement.

What is often missed in a workplace that might be a sole trader or a small, dedicated group of people is that all of these things add to an accumulating burden that takes people away from trying to ensure their business is profitable, that they are able to employ others and that they are able to create hope, reward and opportunity for the communities that they are part of. That is the record. The record has not been spectacular. It is a bit sad, because just recently we were trying to make that contribution by having small businesses in particular relieved of the needless and unjustified burden of being the paid parental leave pay clerk. It was a commitment that I thought we would have seen bipartisan support for, given the election promises that were made by Labor in opposition—this is in addition to the one-in one-out. I keep going back to Friday the 13th, interestingly—July 2007. Ministers Plibersek, Gillard and Macklin in their former shadow roles issued a media release that promised that the paid parental leave would have certain characteristics. I quote:

Labor will not support a system that imposes additional financial burdens or administrative complexity on small businesses or in any way acts as a discouragement to the employment of women.

That was the promise, and that has been broken as well. We are seeing a pattern of failure in terms of red-tape reduction.

Even in your own state, Madam Deputy President Rishworth, Mr Georganas is actually proposing that we now create a 'do not knock' register. I did say that in 16 years it was the worst piece of legislation I have ever seen, which was the longest confession note that the Gillard government was unable to communicate with people. The belief was that more red tape was the solution, when all we needed to do was to get the message out that if people do not want door-to-door salespeople coming to their house they simply have to ask them to leave, and they are obliged to leave under the law. Currently there are cases before the courts to see whether a sign that says 'do not knock' amounts to that request to leave. That is already embedded in the current law and we should really be looking to make sure the law behaves as it was conceived. But no, there was an idea by the member for Hindmarsh that we would have more regulation. He characterised his electorate as having a large number of non-English-speaking background residents who were not able to say, 'No, thank you, please go away' or who were not able to put up a sign saying, 'Do not knock,' but somehow they would be able to work out who to ring to be put on a register to explain their circumstances—when the legislation itself could not even identify where the registrar would be found to put their name on the register to then look at all the exemptions that were in the legislation. If the current arrangement was thought to be too cumbersome, why add more red tape in a shambolic effort to look like you were doing something when the solution was probably worse than the problem you were trying to solve, notwithstanding the fact that the current law deals with it?

The reputation of this government with regard to red tape is quite troubling and quite problematic. It is quite true, as an earlier speaker, the member for Parramatta said, that there are anticipated peaks in the number of regulatory instruments that are due to be reviewed, and that is what planning is for. Planning is to anticipate and to understand that a statutory obligation for these regulations to sunset requires action in advance of them to see whether they are still relevant, valid and responsive in public policy terms. That could involve clustering. That could do any number of things that amount to the sensible preparation of a known statutory obligation to deal with these regulations or otherwise they would expire. Instead, as of half an hour ago, we are still unable to establish what the shelf life is of regulations that were due to sunset had it not been for this legislation. So we do not even know which ones of these legislative instruments, otherwise subject to a sunset provision, will now have the paddles put on them to bring them back to life for a period of time that neatly coincides with a new phased review and consultation process, thematic or otherwise, all of which could have been perfectly easily and appropriately undertaken within the current construct of the sunsetting time frames for those regulations. But that has not happened. The government has been too focused on its own survival, its own day-to-day tactics, to take account of and be responsive to a legislative duty that it has, and its agencies and portfolios have, to realise that there is a whole bunch of regulations due to sunset under an existing provision.

Can you imagine the shock in the small-business community? Can you imagine how they are burdened by the 210 in or amended regulations for each one out—a number of broken promises in relation to the red tape and compliance obligation? I have just touched on paid parental leave as an example, and there are further Labor proposals for shambolic additional red tape that will offer no relief and no remedy to the problems it seeks to address. On top of that, we now have regulations—the small business community thought, 'Well, at least we'll be relieved of those ones that are being sunsetted out,' but no—that are going to have their shelf life extended. There is a process that can now be undertaken in an orderly way to conduct the review and consultation that could have started some time ago, knowing, as we all did, that this was the profile of the expiring regulations that the government and its agencies were faced with.

So, with regard to those twin peaks of government regulation and their sunset dates, the twin peaks are still there, man; we have just shifted them a bit, or we have broken them down to be slightly less peaky peaks. What we have done is, rather than seeing the sunsetting of regulations as the law required, we are going to keep some of them alive. We are going to extend their shelf life and their impact. We are going to continue to have to service and administer them while we get into some orderly arrangement to carry out a review that everyone knew was already on the radar screen, with legislated time commitments, an obligation to consult, a chance to ask what so many small businesses ask themselves every day when they look at yet another piece of regulation: how does this help? How does this in some way contribute to the peace, order and good government of the Commonwealth of Australia? How does this in some way add to the prosperity and opportunities in our community? How does this in some way improve the hope, reward and opportunities for our citizens and the quality of life they can enjoy? Those are very simple questions that are asked by small businesses every day. They would be hoping that the government would be asking itself those questions, because it was a legal obligation to do so.

Well, no, that is not what is happening under the Gillard government. They are going to fudge that date. The very simple question was supposed to have been asked: does this still represent a relevant, justifiable and appropriate response to public policy concerns in our country? You will see in the outstanding Productivity Commission report that touches on the review process what is involved, the time frames and certain key anniversary dates. It even goes on to things such as reviewing certain legislative instruments and how that is handled overseas, all of which is a very sound approach to good governance but all of which has not been carried through—a good backswing but no follow-through in relation to the government's promises on red tape and deregulation. At least the coalition take this seriously. We have identified opportunities already. We have not just put up a number of regulatory instruments which might encourage a mischievous government to bundle and package them up so that they look like less even though the burdens and compliance costs associated with them could have gone up quite substantially. Saying, 'Fewer words, fewer instruments,' the government would be out there patting itself on the back, but we have said, 'No, it is the cost that matters. It is the cost in terms of the time, the need to prepare, the changes to systems and the requirement to get advice where appropriate.' All of those are valid characteristics that are part of the Victorian process for evaluating the regulatory burden.

I would like to think we can restore small business hope, reward and opportunity in this country, because it is desperately needed. We need a government that is fair dinkum about the crucial role small business plays in our economy and in communities right across the continent. But, above all, we need to give small business the best chance at success not only for themselves but knowing that they provide in turn opportunities for others and add to the wellbeing and prosperity of their communities. One way of doing that is getting rid of needless, unnecessary and unjustified red tape. The government's record on that is, frankly, appalling. I think the best way to reduce the compliance burden on small business in Australia is not to mess with the sunset clauses and the twin peaks. It is to have an election and get a government that is genuinely committed to partnering with small business so that we are not binding them up in red tape and impeding their contribution to our economy and our communities.

Kelly O'Dwyer (Higgins, Liberal Party) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I would like to commend the speech just delivered by my good friend and colleague the member for Dunkley, who rose to speak on the Legislative Instruments Amendment (Sunsetting Measures) Bill 2012. I rise as well, because it is all too common an event both of us face that we need to rise in this place to explain how the government's policy differs from their rhetoric, how their actions do not meet their words and how their walk simply does not match their talk. This was never more so than in the case of regulation and red tape.

Under no circumstances can any member of the government come into the House and claim that they are cutting red tape and removing regulation when the evidence simply does not support this. I am deputy chair of the Coalition Deregulation Taskforce, which is so capably chaired by Senator Arthur Sinodinos and co-deputy chaired by Senator David Bushby. We have had the responsibility of meeting with community groups and businesses right around the nation, listening to the regulatory burden that they face. Let me tell you, it is not a pretty picture. It tells a story in which firms need to hire extra staff just to deal with administration, consultancy firms are specialising in compliance projects rather than growth projects and small business owners are spending their weekends filling in paperwork rather than with their families.

Labor's record of regulation and red tape is nothing short of atrocious. Since coming to government in 2007, Labor has introduced over 18,089 new regulations, with fewer than 86 of those regulations repealed. Yet this is before the mother of all regulatory burdens is even set to commence—the carbon tax. When we have talked about the carbon tax, what people have skated over in all of the debate to date is the over 1,000 pages of new regulations that go with this $9 billion-a-year new tax. There are 1,000 pages of regulations that have not yet been explained to business despite the fact that business has to comply with these regulations in only a matter of days. When we talk about uncertainty there is no greater example than a business not knowing what regulations they must abide by. Yet these are coming in, as I said, in just a matter of days. How can the government be taken seriously on the issue of regulation reform when they will not even talk about this themselves? They labelled the carbon tax the biggest economic reform for a generation, and yet it is totally off limits at the tax forum, the regulation forum and the business forum. They are the three most significant events on the government's calendar in relation to business and the economy, but the biggest supposed economic reform in a generation dare not speak its name in those forums. If it were not so serious, it would be simply a joke. This is beyond farce and beyond comprehension. It defies logic that the government continue to stick their fingers in their ears and ignore the very loud and very real concerns from business about this new carbon tax.

In my meetings as part of the task force I have visited Perth, Brisbane, Adelaide, Hobart, Sydney and of course my home town of Melbourne. The task force has met with well over a hundred associations, businesses, individuals and not-for-profit organisations, and not one has come back with a message that everything is fine, that they do not face any regulatory burdens. There is clearly a very significant need to address the red tape and regulation burden. But who faces the most significant burden when it comes to red tape? As pointed out by my colleague the member for Dunkley, it is the 2.7 million small businesses of this nation that cannot afford to employ high-cost consultants to manage the extra administration. We have heard so much evidence that many small businesses simply ignore the myriad regulations that daunt them. They simply ignore them and hope that they are not penalised if in fact they are found to be in conflict with any of the regulations they must abide by.

Why is it so important for governments to support and facilitate the growth of small business? Is it because small business employs over four million Australians and represents 95 per cent of all businesses? Is it because small business is one of the most critical elements to the engine room of any economy? It is of course because when small business is thriving our entire economy thrives. The important role of government when it comes to business is to implement policy settings that allow businesses to grow and thrive on their own, without reliance on government handouts and subsidies, so that the small businesses of today have the opportunity to become the large businesses of tomorrow. This is how true wealth is created and shared amongst the community—not by demonising the wealth creators and waging class warfare.

The benefit of removing red tape and unnecessary administrative burdens has been well documented. According to the Productivity Commission, red-tape reduction can contribute up to $12 billion to the economy and represents four per cent of all business costs. Therefore, we do commend the government for adopting a Howard government initiative to at least attempt to remove some regulation. However, this bill deals largely with redundant regulation that will not have a direct impact on current day-to-day business activities. We want to see from the government a genuine attempt to remove regulation that is restricting growth and, as a result, reducing competition.

Let me give you an example: in order to tender for $5 million or more of government funding for construction projects, firms must be approved by the Office of the Federal Safety Commissioner. However, in order to gain this approval, the firm must employ an occupational health and safety officer on every project they are currently undertaking, no matter how large or how small. It could be a job as simple as digging a ditch. This position could cost a business as much as $150,000 per annum. Given that firms could have multiple projects running concurrently, the costs quickly escalate, thereby making it prohibitive for smaller firms to tender for these lucrative government contracts. It defies common sense. Consequently, only large firms have the capacity to compete for these projects, thus removing competition and forcing up prices. How can small to medium sized firms be expected to grow when they are in effect restricted from even tendering for such projects?

The government claim that they are addressing regulation through measures like this bill, even though we have already established it will not have any great effect on business, and their so-called deregulation forum—a deregulation forum that I note only occurred after our leader, Tony Abbott, announced the coalition's deregulation task force. But the government's deregulation forum was simply a forum of 2½ hours with 25 participants, which equates to a measly six minutes per presentation. It is time for the government to stop playing around the edges and participate in genuine regulatory reform that addresses the real issues that businesses and not-for-profits are facing. But we know that under this government that simply will not happen.

It needs to be said that the coalition is not in and of itself against regulation. We believe that some regulation can be good and some regulation is necessary. The coalition, though, is against regulation that has no impact on its intended consequences or, worse, actually restricts companies from conducting business, like the example mentioned before. That is why the coalition, through the work done by the coalition's deregulation task force and in conjunction with the shadow ministers, are meticulously working through, industry by industry, ways in which we can remove cumbersome and burdensome regulation. The final report will be completed later this year.

The coalition have already made significant announcements—including that we will be removing $1 billion of red tape and regulation—and the coalition deregulation task force will build on these. The coalition has already stated that, amongst other things, we will be creating a one-stop shop for environmental approvals that is, properly, overseen by the states, and provides an opportunity for the states to apply both federal and state environmental regulation in one process rather than in two, where the process can be gamed and projects can be delayed.

We have also stated that we will simplify the administration of compulsory employee superannuation contributions by allowing small business to remit compulsory superannuation contributions to the ATO, which would then distribute them to superannuation funds. We have also committed to moving the administration of the national Paid Parental Leave scheme from small business to the government's Family Assistance Office. We will end the Gillard government's attacks on family businesses and the self-employed by recognising independent contracting as a legitimate form of business, allowing them the freedom to engage in and contribute to the economy without harassment or new legislation. But, most importantly, a coalition government will rescind Labor's carbon tax—a carbon tax that will increase costs for every small business and increase red tape and regulation, which will ultimately export jobs and emissions overseas. So, although we do support this bill, there needs to be a proper, real and concerted effort to deal with the regulation and red-tape problem that is plaguing our nation's businesses and strangling our capacity to grow and prosper as Australians.

Sid Sidebottom (Braddon, Australian Labor Party, Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) Share this | Link to this | Hansard source

I am very pleased to be representing the Attorney-General in this matter. I would like to thank members of this chamber for their contribution to the debate on the Legislative Instruments Amendment (Sunsetting Measures) Bill 2012, most especially for their support of small business in Australia. There are 2.75 million small businesses, representing a third of our economy and employing some five million Australian workers.

Regulation and other legislative instruments are a fundamental part of our legal framework. They communicate the rights and responsibilities of business owners, big and small, and of individuals in a number of significant industries. So it is important that regulations and other instruments are simple to access and easy to understand. Reducing the regulatory burden, as all speakers have agreed, makes it easier for small business to get on with what they do best—that is, producing and employing. This bill is a key part of the Gillard government's commitment to industry and small business. These are practical, considered measures towards reducing the red tape and regulation that have historically tended to increase in active industries under successive governments, which the member for Stirling quite rightly pointed out. That is why this government is taking action to reduce regulation in a coordinated way and in close cooperation with industry. Indeed, the member for Parramatta quite clearly set out the extent of the sunset measures, for instance, that have existed since 2003 and the need to streamline the process of reviews.

To this end the bill will amend the Legislative Instrument Act 2003 in pursuit of three key efficiencies which I would like to speak about. First, it simplifies the sunsetting dates of legislative instruments and reduces the number of instruments that sunset all at once, making it easier for small businesses to understand their regulatory responsibilities. Second, it allows a new type of thematic review and provides more time for consultation. This will improve the quality and the clarity of instruments and give businesses a central role in the regulation of their own sector. Third, it allows for obsolete instruments to be repealed when they have clearly served their purpose, ensuring that both businesses and individuals will have better access to the law. The government then will be in a position to repeal thousands of unnecessary regulations through this new streamlined repeal process.

It is another example of the government working with the community to create a clear, understandable and fair framework for doing business in Australia. I know, for instance, that the Minister for Small Business, the Hon. Brendan O'Connor MP, will welcome this legislation on behalf of the millions of small-business owners across Australia. They will now be able to spend more time on growing their businesses instead of wading through redundant or ambiguous regulatory systems. The measures in the bill, including reforms to the requirements for explanatory material, will also make it easier for small businesses to understand their regulatory responsibilities and have a bigger say in how regulations are drafted, a point I think the member for Higgins was trying to make.

The Minister for Finance and Deregulation, the Hon. Senator Penny Wong, has also worked hard to ensure this legislation forms one part of the government's regulatory reform agenda. This bill implements recommendations from the minister's review of pre-2008 subordinate legislation and is indeed consistent with the Productivity Commission's 2011 report Identifying and evaluating regulatory reforms. Reducing unnecessary red tape, all speakers and all members of this House would agree, will help Australian businesses be more productive, more efficient and more competitive. I commend the bill to the House.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment.